Physical Activity Intervention Effects on Sedentary Time in Spanish-Speaking Latinas

Ecological Momentary Intervention to Replace Sedentary Time With Physical Activity to Improve Executive Function in Midlife and Older Latino Adults: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Exercise interventions often improve moderate to vigorous physical activity, but simultaneously increase sedentary time due to a compensatory resting response. A higher level of sedentary time is associated with a lower level of executive function, while increased moderate to vigorous physical activity is associated with improved global cognition and working memory among Latino adults. Latino adults are the fastest-growing minority group in the United States and are at high risk for cognitive decline, spend more time sedentary compared to non-Hispanic populations, and engage in low levels of physical activity. Interventions that are culturally appropriate for Latino adults to replace sedentary time with physical activity are critically needed.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to develop and test the feasibility and acceptability of an ecological momentary intervention (EMI; delivered in real time) that is individually designed to replace sedentary time with physical activity in Latino adults.

METHODS

This pilot study randomized 39 (n=26, 67% female; mean age 61, SD 5.8 years) community-dwelling, Spanish-speaking Latino adults (1:1 allocation) to either a 6-week EMI program designed to replace sitting time with physical activity (20/39, 51%) or physical activity guidelines education (19/39, 49%). The program was conducted on the web and in Spanish. The intervention was individualized based on individual interview responses. The intervention included the use of a Fitbit activity monitor, weekly didactic phone meetings, interactive tools (SMS text messages), and coach-delivered feedback. Feasibility and acceptability were assessed via study satisfaction (Likert scales), motivation (ecological momentary assessment), retention, and compliance. Sedentary time and physical activity were assessed via 7-day actigraphy. Cognitive performance was assessed via the trail making test part A and B (part B=executive function) and via the National Institutes of Health Toolbox remote cognitive assessment. Statistical analysis included a linear model on change score from baseline, adjusting for age, sex, and education, emphasizing effect size.

RESULTS

Participant satisfaction with EMI was high (9.4/10), with a high degree of motivation to replace sitting time with physical activity (9.8/10). The intervention compliance rate was 79% with low difficulty using the Fitbit (1.7/10). Weekly step count increased in the intervention group by 5543 steps (group difference: d=0.54; P=.05) and sedentary time decreased by a mean 348 (SD 485) minutes (group difference: d=0.47; P=.24) compared to controls, with moderately strong effect sizes. The trail making test part B improved in the intervention group (mean -35.26, SD 60.35 seconds), compared to the control group (mean 7.19, SD 46 seconds; group difference: d=0.74; P=.01). No group differences were observed in other cognitive measures.

CONCLUSIONS

An individualized EMI designed for midlife and older Latino adults has the potential to replace sitting time with physical activity and improve executive functioning. The intervention was feasible and well received with a high degree of satisfaction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04507464; https://tinyurl.com/44c4thk5.

Self-determined motivational health coaching ('SAMI') during outpatient treatment to promote physical activity of people with serious mental illness: a pilot controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Brief motivational coaching, integrated into health care; seems promising to address physical inactivity of people with serious mental illness (SMI).

AIMS

To test the impact of a self-determined health coaching approach (the "SAMI" intervention) during outpatient mental health treatment on moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) of people with SMI.

METHODS

Adults (mean age = 41.9, SD = 10.9) with an ICD-10 diagnosis of mental illness were semi-randomized to the SAMI-intervention group (IG) or control group (CG). The IG received 30 minutes of health coaching based on the self-determination theory (SDT). MVPA and sedentary time (ST) were measured with the International Physical Activity Questionnaire - short form (IPAQ-SF) and symptoms of mental illness with the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-18), each at baseline and follow-up (3-4 months). Differences in primary (MVPA) and secondary (ST, BSI-18) outcomes were evaluated using negative binomial regressions and general linear models.

RESULTS

In the IG (n = 30), MVPA increased from 278 (interquartile range [IQR] = 175-551) to 435 (IQR = 161-675) min/week compared to a decrease from 250 (IQR = 180-518) to 155 (IQR = 0-383) min/week in the CG (n = 26; adjusted relative difference at follow-up: Incidence Rate Ratio [IRR] = 2.14, 95% CI: 1.17-3.93, p = 0.014). There were no statistically significant differences in ST and BSI-18.

CONCLUSIONS

Brief self-determined health coaching during outpatient treatment could increase post-treatment MVPA in people with SMI, potentially up to a clinically relevant level. However, great uncertainty (for all outcomes) weakens the assessment of clinical relevance.

Optimal dose and type of physical activity to improve functional capacity and minimise adverse events in acutely hospitalised older adults: a systematic review with dose-response network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To identify the optimal dose and type of physical activity to improve functional capacity and reduce adverse events in acutely hospitalised older adults.

DESIGN

Systematic review and Bayesian model-based network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Four databases were searched from inception to 20 June 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of a physical activity-based intervention on at least one functional outcome in people aged ≥50 years hospitalised due to an acute medical condition were included. Pooled effect estimates (ie, standardised mean differences for functional capacity and the ratio of means for adverse events) were calculated using random treatment effects network meta-analysis models.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies (3842 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Approximately 100 Metabolic Equivalents of Task per day (METs-min/day) (~40 min/day of light effort or ~25 min/day of moderate effort activities) was the minimal dose to improve the functional capacity of acute hospitalised older adults (standardised mean difference (SMD)=0.28, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.01 to 0.55). The optimal dose was estimated at 159 METs-min/day (~70 min/day of light effort or ~40 min/day of moderate effort activities; SMD=0.41, 95% CrI 0.08 to 0.72). Ambulation was deemed the most efficient intervention, and the optimal dose was reached at 143 METs-min/day (~50 min/day of slow-paced walking; SMD=0.76, 95% CrI 0.35 to 1.16), showing a high evidential power (87.68%). The minimal effective ambulation dose was estimated at 74 METs-min/day (~25 min/day of slow-paced walking; SMD=0.25, 95% CrI 0.01 to 0.41). Physical activity interventions resulted in a decrease in the rate of adverse events compared with usual care at discharge (ratio of means=0.96, 95% CrI 0.95 to 0.97; median time 7 days).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis yielded low to moderate evidence supporting the use of in-hospital supervised physical activity programmes in acutely hospitalised older adults. As little as ~25 min/day of slow-paced walking is sufficient to improve functional capacity and minimise adverse events in this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42021271999.

The Effect of a Physical Activity Coaching Intervention on Accelerometer-Measured Sedentary Behaviours in Insufficiently Physically Active Ambulatory Hospital Patients

Little is known about the impact that physical activity (PA) coaching interventions have on sedentary behaviours. The aim of this study was to investigate if a coaching intervention that increases PA coincidentally influences objectively measured sedentary time in insufficiently physically active adults. We recruited 120 insufficiently physically active ambulatory hospital patients and randomized them to either receive a PA coaching intervention designed to increase objectively measured moderate-to-vigorous-intensity PA (MVPA) or be part of a control group. Participants wore an accelerometer for seven days at baseline, post-intervention (three months) and follow-up (nine months). Changes in the average length of sedentary bouts, proportion of time in sedentary behaviours and number of sedentary bouts were evaluated using mixed-model ANOVAs. At baseline, both groups undertook 67 ± 13 sedentary bouts and spent 69% ± 6% of their time in sedentary behaviours. Compared with control, the intervention group decreased the number of sedentary bouts by 24% and the proportion of time in sedentary behaviours by 7% (p < 0.001). Significant changes were not observed between the groups for average length of sedentary bouts. The PA intervention led to a decrease in the number of sedentary bouts and proportion of time in sedentary behaviours. Future research should investigate PA coaching interventions designed to target simultaneous changes in MVPA and sedentary behaviours.

Interventions outside the workplace for reducing sedentary behaviour in adults under 60 years of age

BACKGROUND

Adults spend a majority of their time outside the workplace being sedentary. Large amounts of sedentary behaviour increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and both all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality.

OBJECTIVES

Primary • To assess effects on sedentary time of non-occupational interventions for reducing sedentary behaviour in adults under 60 years of age Secondary • To describe other health effects and adverse events or unintended consequences of these interventions • To determine whether specific components of interventions are associated with changes in sedentary behaviour • To identify if there are any differential effects of interventions based on health inequalities (e.g. age, sex, income, employment) SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, and ClinicalTrials.gov on 14 April 2020. We checked references of included studies, conducted forward citation searching, and contacted authors in the field to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs of interventions outside the workplace for community-dwelling adults aged 18 to 59 years. We included studies only when the intervention had a specific aim or component to change sedentary behaviour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional information or data when required. We examined the following primary outcomes: device-measured sedentary time, self-report sitting time, self-report TV viewing time, and breaks in sedentary time.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials involving 1770 participants, all undertaken in high-income countries. Ten were RCTs and three were cluster RCTs. The mean age of study participants ranged from 20 to 41 years. A majority of participants were female. All interventions were delivered at the individual level. Intervention components included personal monitoring devices, information or education, counselling, and prompts to reduce sedentary behaviour. We judged no study to be at low risk of bias across all domains. Seven studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessment due to use of self-report outcomes measures. Primary outcomes Interventions outside the workplace probably show little or no difference in device-measured sedentary time in the short term (mean difference (MD) -8.36 min/d, 95% confidence interval (CI) -27.12 to 10.40; 4 studies; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions reduce device-measured sedentary time in the medium term (MD -51.37 min/d, 95% CI -126.34 to 23.59; 3 studies; I² = 84%; very low-certainty evidence) We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace reduce self-report sitting time in the short term (MD -64.12 min/d, 95% CI -260.91 to 132.67; I² = 86%; very low-certainty evidence). Interventions outside the workplace may show little or no difference in self-report TV viewing time in the medium term (MD -12.45 min/d, 95% CI -50.40 to 25.49; 2 studies; I² = 86%; low-certainty evidence) or in the long term (MD 0.30 min/d, 95% CI -0.63 to 1.23; 2 studies; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). It was not possible to pool the five studies that reported breaks in sedentary time given the variation in definitions used. Secondary outcomes Interventions outside the workplace probably have little or no difference on body mass index in the medium term (MD -0.25 kg/m², 95% CI -0.48 to -0.01; 3 studies; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Interventions may have little or no difference in waist circumference in the medium term (MD -2.04 cm, 95% CI -9.06 to 4.98; 2 studies; I² = 65%; low-certainty evidence). Interventions probably have little or no difference on glucose in the short term (MD -0.18 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.06; 2 studies; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) and medium term (MD -0.08 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.05; 2 studies, I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) Interventions outside the workplace may have little or no difference in device-measured MVPA in the short term (MD 1.99 min/d, 95% CI -4.27 to 8.25; 4 studies; I² = 23%; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions improve device-measured MVPA in the medium term (MD 6.59 min/d, 95% CI -7.35 to 20.53; 3 studies; I² = 70%; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace improve self-reported light-intensity PA in the short-term (MD 156.32 min/d, 95% CI 34.34 to 278.31; 2 studies; I² = 79%; very low-certainty evidence). Interventions may have little or no difference on step count in the short-term (MD 226.90 steps/day, 95% CI -519.78 to 973.59; 3 studies; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence) No data on adverse events or symptoms were reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions outside the workplace to reduce sedentary behaviour probably lead to little or no difference in device-measured sedentary time in the short term, and we are uncertain if they reduce device-measured sedentary time in the medium term. We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace reduce self-reported sitting time in the short term. Interventions outside the workplace may result in little or no difference in self-report TV viewing time in the medium or long term. The certainty of evidence is moderate to very low, mainly due to concerns about risk of bias, inconsistent findings, and imprecise results. Future studies should be of longer duration; should recruit participants from varying age, socioeconomic, or ethnic groups; and should gather quality of life, cost-effectiveness, and adverse event data. We strongly recommend that standard methods of data preparation and analysis are adopted to allow comparison of the effects of interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour.