Informace o publikaci

EFFECT OF PRIMARY PREVENTIVE EXAMINATION WITH CARDIORESPIRATORY FITNESS TEST

Autoři

KUNZOVÁ Šárka FIALA Jindřich ŘIMÁK Pavel KANOVSKY Petr

Rok publikování 2017
Druh Článek v odborném periodiku
Časopis / Zdroj Central European Journal of Public Health
Fakulta / Pracoviště MU

Lékařská fakulta

Citace
Doi http://dx.doi.org/10.21101/cejph.a4415
Obor Veřejné zdravotnictví, sociální lékařství
Klíčová slova primary prevention; lifestyle; cardiorespiratory fitness test; physical activity; young adults; behavioural change
Popis Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the potential of free comprehensive primary preventive examination (CPPE) combined with cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) test in terms of its attractiveness for general population and moreover to evaluate the induced behavioural changes. The main focus was on physical activity behaviour (PA). Methods: In 2009-2013, 250 people (100 men, 250 women) aged 18-65 years were examined. CPPE included assessment of health status and lifestyle, CRF test and individualized counselling. Expectations, reasons and motivations for participating were recorded. The sample was evaluated in terms of age, gender, lifestyle, body mass index, body fat percentage, CRF, and health characteristics. Evaluation according to subjective benefits, perceived effects on health and lifestyle was performed after six months using electronic feedback questionnaires (FQ). Comparison was made within groups formed according to the reported increase in PA. Results: People aged 18-39 years accounted for 72.8% of the sample; mean age 34.4 11.0 years; 40.0% were men. Behavioural and health risks were lower in comparison with the general Czech population, but at least 1 of 5 assessed risk factors was present in 88.8% (low fruit and vegetable consumption 74.8%, low physical activity level (PAL) 45.6%, smoking 19.6%, risky alcohol use 18.8%, and stress load 10.4%). The most represented category of CRF was "endurance-trained" (both genders). CPPE was perceived as a source of information concerning health, CRF and lifestyle. 40.0% of men and 30.7% of women were focused on improvement in CRF. The response rate of FQ was 75.6%. Individuals with low PAL and low CRF provided feedback less often (p < 0.05). In terms of perceived effect, 84.1% of the respondents implemented some kind of behavioural change; 60.9% reported increase in PA, but only 38.1% reported maintaining improvement in PA after 6 months. A higher proportion of reported lasting changes in PA occurred in subjects who were overweight/obese and in those with low CRF. Participants with low PAL and higher number of lifestyle risks more likely increased their PA only temporarily. Improvement in PA was associated with reported changes in diet (p < 0.001). In the group of respondents there was an increase in self-perceived PA (SPA) compared to the baseline (p = 0.001). Moreover, individuals who reported increase in PA showed improvement in subjectively perceived health. Conclusion: The testing of CRF appears to be a promising motivating factor for going through the intervention, especially for younger people and men. CPPE is effective at the individual level in terms of providing information and initiating behavioural changes in PA. However, this type of intervention is less attractive and less effective for individuals with a higher behavioural risk profile.