ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: A sedentary lifestyle is indicated in the international literature as one of the main causes for the onset of some cardiovascular risk factors. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a therapeutic physical exercise programme on different clinical indicators related to dyslipidaemia (total cholesterol, HDL and LDL) in sedentary subjects with a cardiovascular risk factor. METHOD: Intervention study with before-and-after evaluation of a sample of 340 patients (132 males and 208 females) referred from the 2 primary care centres of the municipality of Molina de Segura (Murcia), and who participated in a 30-week programme of physical exercise combining muscle-conditioning work circuits with other cardio-respiratory resistance workouts. Regarding the clinical indicators, the health professionals collected in the medical history the health indicators corresponding to the biological evolution of the process for which the subjects studied had started the physical exercise programme. RESULTS: The statistical analyses showed a significant improvement (p<.005) in the LDL indicator and a non-significant improvement in total and HDL cholesterol indicators after a 3-month exercise programme of 3 weekly sessions. CONCLUSIONS: The prescription of physical exercise in dyslipidaemic subjects from primary care centre should be evaluated as a resource for improving the clinical indicators specific to their pathology.
Subject(s)
Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control , Dyslipidemias/therapy , Exercise Therapy/methods , Sedentary Behavior , Adult , Aged , Cardiovascular Diseases/etiology , Cholesterol/blood , Cholesterol, HDL/blood , Controlled Before-After Studies , Dyslipidemias/complications , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Primary Health Care , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To analyse the effect of the use/implementation of 3methods to reduce weight in overweight or obese patients during one year of follow up. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The design corresponds to a double-blind, randomised, controlled clinical trial with 3arms, and 12 months of follow-up. Patients were randomised into 3intervention groups: obesity motivational intervention, with a nurse previously trained in motivational intervention by expert psychologists (G1; n=60); lower intensity consultation, non-motivational group, with digital platform support (G2; N=61), and a third group that received recommendations for weight loss and follow-up in Primary Care Clinic (G3; n=59). Anthropometric variables (weight, height, and abdominal-waist circumference) were measured, and the percentage of patients who managed to reduce their weight ≥5% was considered as the main measurement of treatment effectiveness. RESULTS: All groups significantly decreased body weight at the end of the study, with a reduction in G1 (-5.6kg) followed by G2 (-4.3kg), and G3 (-1.7kg), with an overall mean: -3.9kg. The indicators of clinical relevance were in G1/G3: relative risk (RR): 4.99 (95% CI: from 2.71 to 9.18); relative risk reduction (RRR): 399.1% (171.3 to 818.0); Absolute risk reduction (RAR): 65.3% (from 51.5 to 79.1) and NNT: 2 (from 2 to 2). In the G2/G3 groups: RR: 3.01 (from 1.57 to 5.76); RRR: 200.5% (from 57.0 to 475.5); RAR: 32.8% (from 16.9 to 48.7) and NNT: 4 (from 3 to 6). In the G1/G2 groups: RR: 1.66 (from 1.25 to 2.20); RRR: 66.1% (from 25.3 to 120.1); RAR: 32.5% (from 16.6 to 48.4) and NNT: 4 (from 3 to 7). CONCLUSIONS: All 3groups were able to reduce weight. Although the group with motivational intervention achieved the greatest decrease, as well as the most favourable clinical relevance indicators.
