Cited by 11Physical Activity and HealthMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems

Pedometry to Prevent Cardiorespiratory Fitness Decline—Is it Effective?

Lystrup, Robert M., West, Gordon F., Olsen, Cara, Ward, Matthew, Stephens, Mark B.·2016·Military Medicine

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Physically active providers are more likely to prescribe exercise. Unfortunately, many become sedentary during their training. We examined pedometry as an incentive to promote physical activity in a cohort of medical students. METHODS: This was a prospective, unblinded clinical trial of pedometry. 107 preclinical medical students volunteered. 50 students received Fitbit pedometers and 57 served as controls. All students ran 1.5- or 2-mile timed runs before pedometer issue, and again 1 year after. Change in run times were the primary outcome measure. Step counts, body composition, and exercise frequency were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: 76% of students with pedometers reported increased motivation to exercise and 57% reported changing daily routines as a result of pedometry. Active pedometry participants declined from 48/50 initially to 22/50 over 13 months. Run times slowed an average of 5.0 seconds for pedometry users vs. 12.3 seconds for the control group. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.48). CONCLUSIONS: A subset of future physicians reported increased motivation to exercise after a trial of pedometry. However, adherence over the long term was poor and it seems to have a limited impact on aerobic exercise performance in this population.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7205/milmed-d-15-00540

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lystrup, R. M., West, G. F., Olsen, C., Ward, M., & Stephens, M. B.
Affiliations
  • Tripler Army Medical Center (US)
  • Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (US)
Venue
Military Medicine
Published
2016-10
Volume
181
Issue
10
Pages
1235-1239
ISSN
  • 0026-4075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-613X
OpenAlex
W2527866073
Cited by
11
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Military Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Keywords
pedometry, pedometers, Fitbit, physical activity promotion, exercise adherence, medical students, cardiorespiratory fitness, running performance, exercise motivation, step count, body composition
MeSH terms
Cardiorespiratory Fitness, Adult, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Male, Military Personnel, Motivation, Prospective Studies, Reward, Students, Exercise

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review