A comparison of the effectiveness of physical activity and sedentary behaviour interventions in reducing sedentary time in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Unlabelled
The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature and compare the effectiveness of controlled interventions with a focus on physical activity (PA) and/or sedentary behaviours (SBs) for reducing sedentary time in adults. Six electronic databases were searched to identify all studies that examined the effects of interventions that targeted PA and/or SBs and that reported on changes in SBs (sedentary, sitting or television time). A qualitative synthesis was performed for all studies, and meta-analyses conducted among studies with mean differences (min/d) of sedentary time.Prospero
CRD42014006535. Sixty-five controlled studies met inclusion criteria; 33 were used in the meta-analyses. Interventions with a focus on PA or that included a PA and SB component produced less consistent findings and generally resulted in modest reductions in sedentary time (PA: standardized mean differences [SMD] = -0.22 [95% confidence interval {CI}: -0.35, -0.10], PA+SB: SMD= -0.37 [95% CI: -0.69, -0.05]). Moderate quality evidence from the randomized controlled trial meta-analysis coupled with the qualitative synthesis provides consistent evidence that large and clinically meaningful reductions in sedentary time can be expected from interventions with a focus on reducing SBs (SMD= -1.28 [95% CI: -1.68, -0.87] ). There is evidence to support the need for interventions to include a component focused on reducing SBs in order to generate clinically meaningful reductions in sedentary time.
SUBMITTER: Prince SA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4233995 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundStroke survivors are often physically inactive as well as sedentary,and may sit for long periods of time each day. This increases cardiometabolic risk and has impacts on physical and other functions. Interventions to reduce or interrupt periods of sedentary time, as well as to increase physical activity after stroke, could reduce the risk of secondary cardiovascular events and mortality during life after stroke.ObjectivesTo determine whether interventions designed to reduce sedentary behaviour after stroke, or interventions with the potential to do so, can reduce the risk of death or secondary vascular events, modify cardiovascular risk, and reduce sedentary behaviour.Search methodsIn December 2019, we searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, and PEDro. We also searched registers of ongoing trials, screened reference lists, and contacted experts in the field.Selection criteriaRandomised trials comparing interventions to reduce sedentary time with usual care, no intervention, or waiting-list control, attention control, sham intervention or adjunct intervention. We also included interventions intended to fragment or interrupt periods of sedentary behaviour.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently selected studies and performed 'Risk of bias' assessments. We analyzed data using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence with the GRADE approach.Main resultsWe included 10 studies with 753 people with stroke. Five studies used physical activity interventions, four studies used a multicomponent lifestyle intervention, and one study used an intervention to reduce and interrupt sedentary behaviour. In all studies, the risk of bias was high or unclear in two or more domains. Nine studies had high risk of bias in at least one domain. The interventions did not increase or reduce deaths (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.03; 10 studies, 753 participants; low-certainty evidence), the incidence of recurrent cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.01; 10 studies, 753 participants; low-certainty evidence), the incidence of falls (and injuries) (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 10 studies, 753 participants; low-certainty evidence), or incidence of other adverse events (moderate-certainty evidence). Interventions did not increase or reduce the amount of sedentary behaviour time (mean difference (MD) +0.13 hours/day, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.68; 7 studies, 300 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were too few data to examine effects on patterns of sedentary behaviour. The effect of interventions on cardiometabolic risk factors allowed very limited meta-analysis.Authors' conclusionsSedentary behaviour research in stroke seems important, yet the evidence is currently incomplete, and we found no evidence for beneficial effects. Current World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend reducing the amount of sedentary time in people with disabilities, in general. The evidence is currently not strong enough to guide practice on how best to reduce sedentariness specifically in people with stroke. More high-quality randomised trials are needed, particularly involving participants with mobility limitations. Trials should include longer-term interventions specifically targeted at reducing time spent sedentary, risk factor outcomes, objective measures of sedentary behaviour (and physical activity), and long-term follow-up.
| S-EPMC8238669 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7389819 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is increasing concern about the time people spend in sedentary behaviour, including screen time, leisure and occupational sitting. The number of both primary research studies (published trials) and reviews has been growing rapidly in this research area. A summary of the highest level of evidence that provides a broader quantitative synthesis of diverse types of interventions is needed. This research is to articulate the evidence of efficacy of sedentary behaviour interventions to inform interventions to reduce sitting time. The umbrella review, therefore, synthesised systematic reviews that conducted meta-analyses of interventions aiming at reducing sedentary behaviour outcomes across all age group and settings.MethodA systematic search was conducted on six databases (MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Health via EBSCOhost platform, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Systematic Reviews). Included articles were systematic reviews with meta-analysis of interventions aiming at reducing sedentary behaviour (screen time, sitting time or sedentary time) in the general population across all age group.ResultsSeventeen reviews met the inclusion criteria (7 in children and adolescent, 10 in adults). All reviews of sedentary behaviour interventions in children and adolescents investigated intervention effectiveness in reducing screen time. Six out of 11 meta-analyses (reported in 7 reviews) showed small but significant changes in viewing time. All reviews of sedentary behaviour interventions in office workplaces indicated substantial reduction in occupational sitting time (range: 39.6 to 100 min per 8-h workday). Sub-group analyses reported a trend favouring environmental change components such as sit-stand desks, active permissive workstations etc. Meta-analyses indicated that sedentary behaviour interventions were superior to physical activity alone interventions or combined physical activity and sedentary behaviour interventions in reducing sitting time.ConclusionThe current systematic reviews and meta-analyses supported sedentary behaviour interventions for reducing occupational sitting time in particular, with small changes seen in screen time in children and adolescents. Future research should explore approaches to maintaining behaviour change beyond the intervention period and investigate the potential of sedentary behaviour reduction interventions in older age groups in non-occupational settings.
| S-EPMC7504841 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo systematically review and synthesise findings from process evaluations of interventions in trials which measured sedentary behaviour as an outcome in adults to explore: (1) how intervention content, implementation, mechanisms of impact and context influence outcomes and (2) how these interventions are experienced from different perspectives (participants, carers, staff).DesignSystematic review and narrative synthesis underpinned by the Medical Research Council process evaluation framework.Data sourcesDatabases searches were conducted in March 2019 then updated in May 2020 and October 2021 in: CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, AMED; EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.Eligibility criteriaWe included: Process evaluations of trials including interventions where sedentary behaviour was measured as an outcome in adults aged 16 or over from clinical or non-clinical populations. We excluded studies if interventions were delivered in educational or workplace settings, or if they were laboratory studies focused on immediate effects of breaking sitting.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted and coded data into a framework and assessed the quality of studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We synthesised findings using a narrative approach.Results17 process evaluations were included. Five interventions focused on reducing sedentary behaviour or sitting time, 12 aimed to increase physical activity or promote healthier lifestyles. Process evaluations indicated changes in sedentary behaviour outcomes were shaped by numerous factors including: barriers (eg, staffing difficulties and scheduling problems) and facilitators (eg, allowing for flexibility) to intervention delivery; contextual factors (eg, usual lifestyle and religious events) and individual factors (eg, pain, tiredness, illness, age and individual preferences).DiscussionIntervention requires careful consideration of different factors that could influence changes in sedentary behaviour outcomes to ensure that interventions can be tailored to suit different individuals and groups.Prospero registration numberCRD42018087403.
| S-EPMC8804646 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Older adults are the most sedentary age group, with sedentary behaviour having negative health-related consequences. There is currently limited understanding of how older adults view sedentary behaviour. This study investigated older adults' understanding of the concept of sedentary behaviour. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 community-dwelling older adults in urban North-West England, selected to be diverse in socio-economic background and activity levels. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted. Participants often construed sedentary behaviour as synonymous with a lack of physical activity, and many perceived reducing sedentary behaviour and increasing moderate-to-vigorous physical activity to be the same thing. Participants perceived the term 'sedentary' to have negative connotations and were often judgemental of people who engaged in high levels of sedentary behaviour. Most participants considered reducing sedentary behaviour to be of value, though more active individuals were unconvinced that reducing sedentary behaviour has value beyond the benefits of being physically active. Interventions may wish to provide education to address the misconception that increasing moderate-to-vigorous physical activity is necessary in order to reduce sedentary behaviour. Educating older adults on the independent health consequences of sedentary behaviour may also prove beneficial.
| S-EPMC8438784 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sedentary behaviour - i.e., low energy-expending waking behaviour while seated or lying down - is a health risk factor, even when controlling for physical activity. This review sought to describe the behaviour change strategies used within interventions that have sought to reduce sedentary behaviour in adults. Studies were identified through existing literature reviews, a systematic database search, and hand-searches of eligible papers. Interventions were categorised as 'very promising', 'quite promising', or 'non-promising' according to observed behaviour changes. Intervention functions and behaviour change techniques were compared across promising and non-promising interventions. Twenty-six eligible studies reported thirty-eight interventions, of which twenty (53%) were worksite-based. Fifteen interventions (39%) were very promising, eight quite promising (21%), and fifteen non-promising (39%). Very or quite promising interventions tended to have targeted sedentary behaviour instead of physical activity. Interventions based on environmental restructuring, persuasion, or education were most promising. Self-monitoring, problem solving, and restructuring the social or physical environment were particularly promising behaviour change techniques. Future sedentary reduction interventions might most fruitfully incorporate environmental modification and self-regulatory skills training. The evidence base is, however, weakened by low-quality evaluation methods; more RCTs, employing no-treatment control groups, and collecting objective data are needed.
| S-EPMC4743603 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Traditional interventions such as education and counseling are successful in
| S-EPMC10214103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImproving physical activity and reducing sedentary behavior represent important areas for intervention in childhood in order to reduce the burden of chronic disease related to obesity and physical inactivity in later life. This paper aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of a multi-arm primary school-based intervention to increase physical activity and/or reduce sedentary time in 8-9 year old children (Transform-Us!).MethodsModelled cost-utility analysis, using costs and effects from a cluster randomized controlled trial of a 30-month intervention that used pedagogical and environmental strategies to reduce and break up sedentary behaviour (SB-I), promote physical activity (PA-I), or a combined approach (PA + SB-I), compared to current practice. A validated multiple-cohort lifetable model (ACE-Obesity Policy model) estimated the obesity and physical activity-related health outcomes (measured as change in body mass index and change in metabolic equivalent task minutes respectively) and healthcare cost-savings over the cohort's lifetime from the public-payer perspective, assuming the intervention was delivered to all 8-9 year old children attending Australian Government primary schools. Sensitivity analyses tested the impact on cost-effectiveness of varying key input parameters, including maintenance of intervention effect assumptions.ResultsCost-effectiveness results demonstrated that, when compared to control schools, the PA-I and SB-I intervention arms were "dominant", meaning that they resulted in net health benefits and healthcare cost-savings if the intervention effects were maintained. When the costs and effects of these intervention arms were extrapolated to the Australian population, results suggested significant potential as obesity prevention measures (PA-I: 60,780 HALYs saved (95% UI 15,007-109,413), healthcare cost-savings AUD641M (95% UI AUD165M-$1.1B); SB-I: 61,126 HALYs saved (95% UI 11,770 - 111,249), healthcare cost-savings AUD654M (95% UI AUD126M-1.2B)). The PA-I and SB-I interventions remained cost-effective in sensitivity analysis, assuming the full decay of intervention effect after 10 years.ConclusionsThe PA-I and SB-I Transform-Us! intervention arms represent good value for money and could lead to health benefits and healthcare cost-savings arising from the prevention of chronic disease in later life if intervention effects are sustained.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN83725066). Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number (ACTRN12609000715279).
| S-EPMC10860323 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Evidence suggests a positive effect of dog ownership on physical activity. However, most previous studies used self-reported physical activity measures. Additionally, it is unknown whether owning a dog is associated with adults' sedentary behaviour, an emerging health risk factor. In this study, physical activity and sedentary behaviour were objectively collected between 2013 and 2015 from 693 residents (aged 40-64 years) living in Japan using accelerometer devices. Multivariable linear regression models were used, adjusted for several covariates. The means of total sedentary time and the number of long (??30 min) sedentary bouts were 26.29 min/day (95% CI?-?47.85,?-?4.72) and 0.41 times/day (95% CI?-?0.72,?-?0.10) lower for those who owned a dog compared to those not owning a dog, respectively. Compared with non-owners, dog-owners had significantly higher means of the number of sedentary breaks (95% CI 0.14, 1.22), and light-intensity physical activity (95% CI 1.31, 37.51). No significant differences in duration of long (??30 min) sedentary bouts, moderate, vigorous, and moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity were observed between dog-owners and non-owners. A novel finding of this study is that owning a dog was associated with several types of adults' sedentary behaviours but not medium-to-high-intensity physical activities. These findings provide new insights for dog-based behavioural health interventions on the benefits of dog ownership for reducing sedentary behaviour.
| S-EPMC7562738 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOlder adults are recommended to sleep 7-8 h/day. Time in bed (TIB) differs from sleep duration and includes also the time of lying in bed without sleeping. Long TIB (≥9 h) are associated with self-reported sedentary behavior, but the association between objectively measured physical activity, sedentary behavior and TIB is unknown.MethodsThis study was based on cross-sectional analysis of the Healthy Ageing Network of Competence (HANC Study). Physical activity and sedentary behaviour were measured by a tri-axial accelerometer (ActiGraph) placed on the dominant wrist for 7 days. Sedentary behavior was classified as < 2303 counts per minute (cpm) in vector magnitude and physical activity intensities were categorized, as 2303-4999 and ≥ 5000 cpm in vector magnitude. TIB was recorded in self-reported diaries. Participants were categorized as UTIB (usually having TIB 7-9 h/night: ≥80% of measurement days), STIB (sometimes having TIB 7-9 h/night: 20-79% of measurement days), and RTIB (rarely having TIB 7-9 h/night: < 20% of measurement days). Multinominal regression models were used to calculate the relative risk ratios (RRR) of being RTIB and STIB by daily levels of physical activity and SB, with UTIB as the reference group. The models were adjusted for age, sex, average daily nap length and physical function.ResultsThree hundred and fourty-one older adults (median age 81 (IQR 5), 62% women) were included with median TIB of 8 h 21 min (1 h 10 min)/day, physical activity level of 2054 (864) CPM with 64 (15) % of waking hours in sedentary behavior. Those with average CPM within the highest tertile had a lower RRR (0.33 (0.15-0.71), p = 0.005) for being RTIB compared to those within the lowest tertile of average CPM. Accumulating physical activity in intensities 2303-4999 and ≥ 5000 cpm/day did not affect the RRR of being RTIB. RRR of being RTIB among highly sedentary participants (≥10 h/day of sedentary behavior) more than tripled compared to those who were less sedentary (3.21 (1.50-6.88), p = 0.003).ConclusionsFor older adults, being physically active and less sedentary was associated with being in bed for 7-9 h/night for most nights (≥80%). Future longitudinal studies are warranted to explore the causal relationship sbetween physical activity and sleep duration.
| S-EPMC7807682 | biostudies-literature