There is evidence that walking groups have wide-ranging health benefits .
The evidence was less clear for other outcomes such as waist circumference fasting glucose , SF-36 ( mental health ) and serum lipids such as high-density lipids .
There were no notable adverse side effects reported in any of the studies .
CONCLUSIONS Walking groups are effective and safe with good adherence and wide-ranging health benefits .
They could be a promising intervention as an adjunct to other healthcare or as a proactive health-promoting activity
OBJECTIVE To assess the health benefits of  outdoor walking groups .
Exercise Evaluation Randomised Trial (EXERT): a randomised trial comparing GP referral for leisure centre-based exercise, community-based walking and advice only.
OBJECTIVES To evaluate and compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a leisure centre-based exercise programme , an instructor-led walking programme and advice-only in patients referred for exercise by their GPs . DESIGN A single-centre , parallel-group , r and omised controlled trial , consisting of three arms , with the primary comparison at 6 months . SETTING Assessment s were carried out at Copthall Leisure Centre in Barnet , an outer London borough , and exercise programmes conducted there and at three other leisure centres and a variety of locations suitable for supervised walking throughout the borough . PARTICIPANTS Participants were aged between 40 and 74 years , not currently physically active and with at least one cardiovascular risk factor . INTERVENTIONS The 943 patients who agreed to participate in the trial were assessed in cohorts and r and omised to one of the following three arms : a 10-week programme of supervised exercise classes , two to three times a week in a local leisure centre ; a 10-week instructor-led walking programme , two to three times a week ; an advice-only control group who received tailored advice and information on physical activity including information on local exercise facilities . After 6 months the control group were rer and omised to one of the other trial arms . Assessment s took place before r and omisation , at 10 weeks ( in a r and om 50 % sub sample of participants ) , 6 months and 1 year in the leisure centre and walking arms . The control participants were similarly assessed up to 6 months and then reassessed at the same intervals as those initially r and omised to the leisure centre and walking groups . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measures were changes in self-reported exercise behaviour , blood pressure , total cholesterol and lipid subfractions . Secondary outcomes included changes in anthropometry , cardiorespiratory fitness , flexibility , strength and power , self-reported lifestyle behaviour , general and psychological health status , quality of life and health service usage . The costs of providing and making use of the service were quantified for economic evaluation . RESULTS There was a net increase in the proportion of participants achieving at least 150 minutes per week of at least moderate activity in the sport/leisure and walking categories in all three study groups : at 6 months , the net increases were 13.8 % in the leisure centre group , 11.1 % in the walking group and 7.5 % in the advice-only group . There were significant reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure in all groups at each assessment point compared with baseline . There were also significant and sustained improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness and leg extensor power , and small reductions in total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in all groups , but there were no consistent differences between the groups for any parameter over time . All three groups showed improvement in anxiety and mental well-being scores 6 months after the beginning of the trial . Leisure centre and walking groups maintained this improvement at 1 year . There were no differences between groups . Costs to the participants amounted to pound 100 for the leisure centre scheme and pound 84 for the walking scheme , while provider costs were pound 186 and pound 92 , respectively . Changes in overall Short Form 36 scores were small and advice only appeared the most cost-effective intervention . CONCLUSIONS The results of this trial suggest that referral for tailored advice , supported by written material s , including details of locally available facilities , supplemented by detailed assessment s may be effective in increasing physical activity . The inclusion of supervised exercise classes or walks as a formal component of the scheme may not be more effective than the provision of information about their availability . On cost-effectiveness grounds , assessment and advice alone from an exercise specialist may be appropriate to initiate action in the first instance . Subsidised schemes may be best concentrated on patients at higher absolute risk , or with specific conditions for which particular programmes may be beneficial . Walking appears to be as effective as leisure centre classes and is cheaper . Efforts should be directed towards maintenance of increased activity , with proven measures such as telephone support . Further research should include an up date d meta- analysis of published exercise interventions using the st and ardised mean difference approach
There is evidence that walking groups have wide-ranging health benefits .
The evidence was less clear for other outcomes such as waist circumference fasting glucose , SF-36 ( mental health ) and serum lipids such as high-density lipids .
There were no notable adverse side effects reported in any of the studies .
CONCLUSIONS Walking groups are effective and safe with good adherence and wide-ranging health benefits .
They could be a promising intervention as an adjunct to other healthcare or as a proactive health-promoting activity
OBJECTIVE To assess the health benefits of  outdoor walking groups .