How effective and how expensive are interventions to reduce sedentary behavior? An umbrella review and meta-analysis

A qualitative study of perceived barriers and facilitators to interrupting sedentary behavior among adults living with obesity

Introduction

Both obesity and sedentary behavior (SB) are associated with negative health consequences including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, certain cancers and all-cause mortality. To date, perceived barriers and facilitators to interrupting SB in adults living with obesity have not been identified.

Objective

This study aimed to identify these perceived barriers and facilitators by conducting a behavioral analysis underpinned by the theoretical domains framework (TDF) and the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) model to enhance knowledge and inform future intervention development.

Methods

A purposive and snowball sample (N = 21) of adults living with obesity took part in semi-structured interviews, guided by the TDF, to investigate perceived barriers or facilitators to interrupt SB. Transcribed interviews were inductively coded using reflexive thematic analysis. Key themes and subthemes were generated by grouping similar and recurring codes. Finally, subthemes were mapped to the TDF and COM-B.

Results

Five key themes were identified, which influence SB across all domains of living. These relate to (i) physical and mental wellbeing; (ii) motivational readiness; (iii) roles, responsibilities and support; (iv) weight bias and stigma; and (v) the environment. These themes were then deductively mapped to all 14 TDF domains and all six of the COM-B constructs.

Conclusion

A complex interplay of individual, societal and policy factors contributes to the development and habituation of SB patterns in adults living with obesity. Factors identified in this study could assist in the development of interventions, strategies and policies designed to interrupt or reduce sedentary behavior in this population.

The effects of active workstations on reducing work-specific sedentary time in office workers: a network meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Active workstations have been proposed as a feasible approach for reducing occupational sedentary time. This study used a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess and compare the overall efficacy of active workstation interventions according to type and concomitant strategy for reducing work-specific sitting time in office workers.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from database inception until May 2022 to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of active workstations with or without concomitant strategies for reducing occupational sedentary time in office workers. The risk of bias of the RCTs included in this study was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook. An NMA with STATA 15.1 was used to construct a network diagram, league figures, and the final surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

A total of 23 eligible studies including eight different types of interventions with 1428 office workers were included. NMA results showed that compared to a typical desk, multicomponent intervention (standardized mean difference (SMD) =  - 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 2.17, - 0.82; SUCRA = 72.4%), sit-stand workstation + promotion (Reminders of rest breaks, posture variation, or incidental office activity) (SMD =  - 1.49; 95%CI - 2.42, - 0.55; SUCRA = 71.0%), treadmill workstation + promotion (SMD =  - 1.29; 95%CI - 2.51, - 0.07; SUCRA = 61.6%), and sit-stand workstation (SMD =  - 1.10, 95%CI - 1.64, - 0.56; SUCRA = 50.2%) were effective in reducing occupational sedentary time for office workers.

CONCLUSIONS

Multicomponent intervention, sit-stand workstation + promotion, treadmill workstation + promotion, and sit-stand workstation appear to be effective in reducing work-specific sedentary time for office workers. Furthermore, multicomponent interventions and active workstations + promotion better reduced work-specific sedentary time than active workstation alone. However, the overall certainty of the evidence was low.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Our study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); registration number: CRD42022344432.

Effectiveness of Multicomponent Interventions in Office-Based Workers to Mitigate Occupational Sedentary Behavior: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Sedentary time in workplaces has been linked to increased risks of chronic occupational diseases, obesity, and overall mortality. Currently, there is a burgeoning research interest in the implementation of multicomponent interventions aimed at decreasing sedentary time among office workers, which encompass a comprehensive amalgamation of individual, organizational, and environmental strategies.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aims at evaluating the effectiveness of multicomponent interventions to mitigate occupational sedentary behavior at work compared with no intervention.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from database inception until March 2023 to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of multicomponent interventions on occupational sedentary behavior among office-based workers. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias by using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. The average intervention effect on sedentary time was calculated using Stata 15.1. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs were used to calculate the continuous variables. Subgroup analyses were performed to determine whether sit-stand workstation, feedback, and prompt elements played an important role in multicomponent interventions. Further, the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 11 RCTs involving 1894 patients were included in the analysis. Five studies were rated as low risk of bias, 2 as unclear risk of bias, and 4 as high risk. The meta-analysis results showed that compared with no intervention, multicomponent interventions significantly reduced occupational sitting time (MD=-52.25 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -73.06 to -31.44; P<.001) and occupational prolonged sitting time (MD=-32.63 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -51.93 to -13.33; P=.001) and increased occupational standing time (MD=44.30 min/8-h workday, 95% CI 23.11-65.48; P<.001), whereas no significant differences were found in occupational stepping time (P=.06). The results of subgroup analysis showed that compared with multicomponent interventions without installment of sit-stand workstations, multicomponent interventions with sit-stand workstation installment showed better effects for reducing occupational sitting time (MD=-71.95 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -92.94 to -51.15), increasing occupational standing time (MD=66.56 min/8-h workday, 95% CI 43.45-89.67), and reducing occupational prolonged sitting time (MD=-47.05 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -73.66 to -20.43). The GRADE evidence summary showed that all 4 outcomes were rated as moderate certainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Multicomponent interventions, particularly those incorporating sit-stand workstations for all participants, are effective at reducing workplace sedentary time. However, given their cost, further research is needed to understand the effectiveness of low-cost/no-cost multicomponent interventions.

Effectiveness of an intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour as a personalised secondary prevention strategy for patients with coronary artery disease: main outcomes of the SIT LESS randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

A high sedentary time is associated with increased mortality risk. Previous studies indicate that replacement of sedentary time with light- and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity attenuates the risk for adverse outcomes and improves cardiovascular risk factors. Patients with cardiovascular disease are more sedentary compared to the general population, while daily time spent sedentary remains high following contemporary cardiac rehabilitation programmes. This clinical trial investigated the effectiveness of a sedentary behaviour intervention as a personalised secondary prevention strategy (SIT LESS) on changes in sedentary time among patients with coronary artery disease participating in cardiac rehabilitation.

METHODS

Patients were randomised to usual care (n = 104) or SIT LESS (n = 108). Both groups received a comprehensive 12-week centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programme with face-to-face consultations and supervised exercise sessions, whereas SIT LESS participants additionally received a 12-week, nurse-delivered, hybrid behaviour change intervention in combination with a pocket-worn activity tracker connected to a smartphone application to continuously monitor sedentary time. Primary outcome was the change in device-based sedentary time between pre- to post-rehabilitation. Changes in sedentary time characteristics (prevalence of prolonged sedentary bouts and proportion of patients with sedentary time ≥ 9.5 h/day); time spent in light-intensity and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity; step count; quality of life; competencies for self-management; and cardiovascular risk score were assessed as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Patients (77% male) were 63 ± 10 years and primarily diagnosed with myocardial infarction (78%). Sedentary time decreased in SIT LESS (- 1.6 [- 2.1 to - 1.1] hours/day) and controls (- 1.2 [ ─1.7 to - 0.8]), but between group differences did not reach statistical significance (─0.4 [─1.0 to 0.3]) hours/day). The post-rehabilitation proportion of patients with a sedentary time above the upper limit of normal (≥ 9.5 h/day) was significantly lower in SIT LESS versus controls (48% versus 72%, baseline-adjusted odds-ratio 0.4 (0.2-0.8)). No differences were observed in the other predefined secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with coronary artery disease participating in cardiac rehabilitation, SIT LESS did not induce significantly greater reductions in sedentary time compared to controls, but delivery was feasible and a reduced odds of a sedentary time ≥ 9.5 h/day was observed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register: NL9263. Outcomes of the SIT LESS trial: changes in device-based sedentary time from pre-to post-cardiac rehabilitation (control group) and cardiac rehabilitation + SIT LESS (intervention group). SIT LESS reduced the odds of patients having a sedentary time >9.5 hours/day (upper limit of normal), although the absolute decrease in sedentary time did not significantly differ from controls. SIT LESS appears to be feasible, acceptable and potentially beneficial, but a larger cluster randomised trial is warranted to provide a more accurate estimate of its effects on sedentary time and clinical outcomes. CR: cardiac rehabilitation.

A Real-Time Mobile Intervention to Reduce Sedentary Behavior Before and After Cancer Surgery: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Sedentary behavior (SB) is prevalent after abdominal cancer surgery, and interventions targeting perioperative SB could improve postoperative recovery and outcomes. We conducted a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary effects of a real-time mobile intervention that detects and disrupts prolonged SB before and after cancer surgery, relative to a monitoring-only control condition.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary effects of a perioperative SB intervention on objective activity behavior, patient-reported quality of life and symptoms, and 30-day readmissions.

METHODS

Patients scheduled for surgery for metastatic gastrointestinal cancer (n=26) were enrolled and randomized to receive either the SB intervention or activity monitoring only. Both groups used a Fitbit smartwatch and companion smartphone app to rate daily symptoms and collect continuous objective activity behavior data starting from at least 10 days before surgery through 30 days post discharge. Participants in the intervention group also received prompts to walk after any SB bout that exceeded a prespecified threshold, with less frequent prompts on days that patients reported more severe symptoms. Participants completed end-of-study ratings of acceptability, and we also examined adherence to assessments and to walking prompts. In addition, we examined effects of the intervention on objective SB and step counts, patient-reported quality of life and depressive and physical symptoms, as well as readmissions.

RESULTS

Accrual (74%), retention (88%), and acceptability ratings (mean overall satisfaction 88.5/100, SD 9.1) were relatively high. However, adherence to assessments and engagement with the SB intervention decreased significantly after surgery and did not recover to preoperative levels after postoperative discharge. All participants exhibited significant increases in SB and symptoms and decreases in steps and quality of life after surgery, and participants randomized to the SB intervention unexpectedly had longer maximum SB bouts relative to the control group. No significant benefits of the intervention with regard to activity, quality of life, symptoms, or readmission were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative patients with metastatic gastrointestinal cancer were interested in a real-time SB intervention and rated the intervention as highly acceptable, but engagement with the intervention and with daily symptom and activity monitoring decreased significantly after surgery. There were no significant effects of the intervention on step counts, patient-reported quality of life or symptoms, and postoperative readmissions, and there was an apparent adverse effect on maximum SB. Results highlight the need for additional work to modify the intervention to make reducing SB and engaging with mobile health technology after abdominal cancer surgery more feasible and beneficial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03211806; https://tinyurl.com/3napwkkt.

The Effectiveness of Interventions to Reduce Sedentary Time in Different Target Groups and Settings in Germany: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Recommendations on Interventions

BACKGROUND

Sedentary behavior is an important risk factor for several chronic diseases and is associated with an increased risk of mortality. We assessed the effectiveness of interventions to reduce sedentary time in Germany and provide recommendations on interventions to reduce sedentary time in children and adults.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched PubMed, Web of Science and the German Clinical Trials Register up to April 2022 for intervention studies targeting sedentary behavior in Germany. We performed a systematic review and qualitative synthesis of the interventions and a meta-analysis in children.

RESULTS

We included 15 studies comprising data from 4588 participants. The results of included primary studies in adults and children showed inconsistent evidence regarding change in sedentary time, with a majority of studies reporting non-significant intervention effects. The meta-analysis in children showed an increase in sedentary time for children in the control and intervention groups.

CONCLUSION

We found inconsistent evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions to reduce time spent sedentary and our meta-analysis showed an increase in sedentary time in children. For children, we recommend physical and social environment interventions with an active involvement of families. For adults, we recommend physical environment interventions, such as height-adjustable desks at work.

Sedentary behavior and cancer-an umbrella review and meta-analysis

Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have summarized the association between sedentary behavior (SB) and cancer. However, the level of evidence and the potential for risk of bias remains unclear. This umbrella review summarized the current data on SB in relation to cancer incidence and mortality, with a particular emphasis on assessing the risk of bias. We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Database for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the association between SB and cancer incidence and mortality. We also searched for recent observational studies not yet included in existing meta-analyses. We re-calculated summary risk estimates for cancer incidence and mortality using random effects models. We included 14 meta-analyses covering 17 different cancer sites from 77 original studies. We found that high SB levels increase the risk for developing ovarian, endometrial, colon, breast, prostate, and rectal cancers, with relative risks of 1.29 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.08-1.56), 1.29 (95% CI = 1.16-1.45), 1.25 (95% CI = 1.16-1.33), 1.08 (95% CI = 1.04-1.11), 1.08 (95% CI = 1.00-1.17), and 1.07 (95% CI = 1.01-1.12), respectively. Also, we found an increased risk of cancer mortality of 1.18 (95% CI = 1.09-1.26). Most associations between SB and specific cancer sites were supported by a "suggestive" level of evidence. High levels of SB are associated with increased risk of several types of cancer and increased cancer mortality risk.