Dataset Information

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.

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

ACCESS DATA

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.

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.

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.

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).

Project description:Insufficient physical activity (PA) and excessive sedentary behavior (SB) are detrimental to physical and mental health. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify whether e-health interventions are effective for improving PA and SB in college students. Five electronic databases, including Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest, were searched to collect relevant randomized controlled trials up to 22 June 2022. In total, 22 trials (including 31 effects) with 8333 samples were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that e-health interventions significantly improved PA at post-intervention (SMD = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.19, 0.45, p < 0.001) compared with the control group, especially for total PA (SMD = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.10, 0.58, p = 0.005), moderate to vigorous PA (SMD = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.32, p = 0.036), and steps (SMD = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.23, 1.28, p < 0.001. There were no significant effects for both PA at follow-up (SMD = 0.24, 95% CI: - 0.01, 0.49, p = 0.057) and SB (MD = -29.11, 95% CI: -70.55, 12.32, p = 0.17). The findings of subgroup analyses indicated that compared to the control group, interventions in the group of general participants (SMD = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.27, 0.63, p < 0.001), smartphone apps (SMD = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.19, 0.73, p = 0.001), and online (SMD = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.43, p < 0.001) can significantly improve PA at post-intervention. Moreover, the intervention effects were significant across all groups of theory, region, instrument, duration, and female ratio. At follow-up, interventions in groups of developing region (SMD = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.73, 1.62, p < 0.001), objective instrument (SMD = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.23, 1.42, p = 0.007), duration ≤ 3-month (SMD = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.72, 1.39, p < 0.001), and all female (SMD = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.02, 1.56, p = 0.044) can significantly improve PA. The evidence of this meta-analysis shows that e-health interventions can be taken as promising strategies for promoting PA. The maintenance of PA improvement and the effect of interventions in reducing SB remain to be further studied. Educators and health practitioners should focus on creating multiple e-health interventions with individualized components.

Dataset Information

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.

Unlabelled

Prospero

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets