Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Dec 12;3:51.
doi: 10.1186/s40814-017-0194-z. eCollection 2017.

Protocol for a Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial of the Use of Physical ACtivity Monitors in an Exercise Referral Setting: The PACERS Study

Free PMC article

Protocol for a Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial of the Use of Physical ACtivity Monitors in an Exercise Referral Setting: The PACERS Study

Jemma Hawkins et al. Pilot Feasibility Stud. .
Free PMC article


Background: Exercise referral schemes are recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) for physical activity promotion among inactive patients with health conditions or risk factors. Whilst there is evidence for the initial effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of such schemes for increasing physical activity, evidence of long-term effects is limited. Techniques such as goal setting, self-monitoring and personalised feedback may support motivation for physical activity. Technologies such as activity monitoring devices provide an opportunity to enhance delivery of motivational techniques. This paper describes the PACERS study protocol, which aims to assess the feasibility and acceptability of implementing an activity monitor within the existing Welsh National Exercise Referral Scheme (NERS) and proposed evaluation methodology for a full-scale randomised controlled trial.

Methods/design: The PACERS study consists of a pilot randomised controlled trial, process evaluation and exploratory economic analyses. Participants will be recruited from the generic pathway of the Welsh NERS and will be randomly assigned to receive the intervention or usual practice. Usual practice is a 16-week structured exercise programme; the intervention consists of an accelerometry-based activity monitor (MyWellnessKey) and an associated web platform (MyWellnessCloud). The primary outcomes are predefined progression criteria assessing the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention and feasibility of the proposed evaluation methodology. Postal questionnaires will be completed at baseline (time 0: T0), 16 weeks after T0 (T1) and 12 months after T0 (T2). Routinely collected data will also be accessed at the same time points. A sub-sample of intervention participants and exercise referral staff will be interviewed following initiation of intervention delivery and at the end of the study.

Discussion: The PACERS study seeks to assess the feasibility of adding a novel motivational component to an existing effective intervention in order to enhance effects on physical activity and support longer-term maintenance. The study will provide insight into the acceptability of activity-monitoring technologies to an exercise referral population and delivery staff. Data from this study will be used to determine whether and how to proceed to a full-scale trial of effectiveness of the intervention, including any necessary refinements to intervention implementation or the proposed evaluation methodology.

Trial registration: ISRCTN85785652.

Keywords: Accelerometer/try; Autonomous motivation; Costs; Economic evaluation; Exercise referral; Feasibility studies; Physical activity; Physical activity monitors; Physical activity trackers.

Conflict of interest statement

The PACERS study was given favourable ethical opinion for conduct in the NHS on 1 December 2015 by the South East Scotland Research Ethics Committee 02 (REF: 189587), and participants are required to provide written informed consent in order to participate in the study.Not applicable. This manuscript does not contain participant data.The authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.


Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of the PACERS study design
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
PACERS logic model
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
PACERS study schedule of enrolment, interventions and assessments. Black-coloured X indicates study participants and red-coloured X indicates intervention delivery staff

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 1 article


    1. British Heart Foundation. The economic costs of physical inactivity. British Heart Foundation National Centre. Loughborough: Loughborough University: 2013.
    1. Department of Health . Start active, stay active: a report on physical activity from the four home countries. London: Department of Health; 2011.
    1. NICE . Exercise referral schemes to promote physical activity. London: NICE Public Health Guidance; 2014.
    1. Din NU, Moore G, Murphy S, Wilkinson C, Williams NH. Health professionals’ perspectives on exercise referral and physical activity promotion in primary care: findings from a process evaluation of the National Exercise Referral Scheme in Wales. Health Educ J. 2014;74(6):743–757. doi: 10.1177/0017896914559785. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sowden SL, Raine R. Running along parallel lines: how political reality impedes the evaluation of public health interventions. A case study of exercise referral schemes in England. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008;62(9):835–841. doi: 10.1136/jech.2007.069781. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources