Participant and workplace champion experiences of an intervention designed to reduce sitting time in desk-based workers: SMART work & life

The Association between Psychological and Behavioral Economic Factors and the Rapid Assessment Disuse Index (RADI) during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The deleterious health effects of prolonged sitting and physical inactivity are well-established, yet these behaviors are pervasive in modern culture. To inform interventions aimed at reducing sedentary behavior and increasing lifestyle activity, this study examined psychological and behavioral economic factors that may be associated with these behaviors. This cross-sectional study was conducted among 4072 adults in Israel. Participants completed a survey pertaining to lifestyle behaviors and economic preferences using an online platform in September 2020. The psychological and behavioral economic factors of interest were patience, self-control, risk-taking, grit, and general self-efficacy. Sedentary behavior and lifestyle activity (e.g., time spent moving about) was assessed using the Rapid Assessment Disuse Index (RADI) tool (higher score indicative of more sitting and less activity). Multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses examined the association between psychological and behavioral economic factors and RADI score. Among 4072 participants, those who were impatient (vs. patient, β: -1.13; 95% CI: -1.89, -0.38) had higher grit (β: -1.25, 95% CI: -1.73, -0.77), and those who were more risk-seeking (β: -0.23; 95% CI: -0.33, -0.13) had lower RADI scores (i.e., less sedentary, more active). Significant associations for grit and risk-taking were also observed when the RADI score was dichotomized, such that individuals who had higher grit or were more risk-seeking were more likely to be non-sedentary/active. No significant associations were observed for self-control or general self-efficacy. Higher grit and more risk-seeking were associated with a decreased propensity for sedentary behaviors and inactivity; these factors may provide targets for interventions aimed at reducing sedentary behavior and increasing lifestyle activity.

The Regulate your Sitting Time (RESIT) intervention for reducing sitting time in individuals with type 2 diabetes: findings from a randomised-controlled feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

Reducing and breaking up sitting is recommended for optimal management of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Yet, there is limited evidence of interventions targeting these outcomes in individuals with this condition. The primary aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of delivering and evaluating a tailored online intervention to reduce and break up sitting in adults with T2DM.

METHODS

A mixed-methods two-arm randomised controlled feasibility trial was conducted in ambulatory adults with T2DM who were randomised 1:1 to the REgulate your SItting Time (RESIT) intervention or usual care control group. The intervention included online education, self-monitoring and prompt tools (wearable devices, smartphone apps, computer apps) and health coaching. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment, attrition, data completion rates and intervention acceptability. Measurements of device-assessed sitting (intended primary outcome for definitive trial), standing and stepping, and physical function, psychosocial health and wellbeing were taken at baseline, 3 months and 6 months. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted at six-months (post intervention) to explore acceptability, feasibility and experiences of the trial and intervention using the Framework Method.

RESULTS

Seventy participants aged 55 ± 11 years were recruited. Recruitment rate (proportion of eligible participants enrolled into the study) was 67% and participant retention rate at 6 months was 93% (n = 5 withdrawals). Data completion rates for daily sitting were 100% at baseline and ranged from 83 to 91% at 3 months and 6 months. Descriptive analysis demonstrated potential for the intervention to reduce device-measured sitting, which was 30.9 ± 87.2 and 22.2 ± 82.5 min/day lower in the intervention group at 3 and 6 months, respectively, compared with baseline. In the control group, sitting was 4.4 ± 99.5 and 23.7 ± 85.2 min/day lower at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Qualitative analysis identified three themes: reasons for participating in the trial, acceptability of study procedures, and the delivery and experience of taking part in the RESIT intervention. Overall, the measurement visits and intervention were acceptable to participants.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of the RESIT intervention and evaluation methods, supporting a future definitive trial. If RESIT is found to be clinically effective, this could lead to changes in diabetes healthcare with a focus on reducing sitting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered with ISRCTN (number ISRCTN14832389).

Implementation and engagement of the SMART Work & Life sitting reduction intervention: an exploratory analysis on intervention effectiveness

BACKGROUND

To enhance the impact of interventions, it is important to understand how intervention engagement relates to study outcomes. We report on the level of implementation and engagement with the SMART Work & Life (SWAL) programme (delivered with (SWAL plus desk) and without a height-adjustable desk (SWAL)) and explore the effects of different levels of this on change in daily sitting time in comparison to the control group.

METHODS

The extent of intervention delivery by workplace champions and the extent of engagement by champions and participants (staff) with each intervention activity was assessed by training attendance logs, workplace champion withdrawal dates, intervention activities logs and questionnaires. These data were used to assess whether a cluster met defined criteria for low, medium, or high implementation and engagement or none of these. Mixed effects linear regression analyses tested whether change in sitting time varied by: (i) the number of intervention activities implemented and engaged with, and (ii) the percentage of implementation and engagement with all intervention strategies.

RESULTS

Workplace champions were recruited for all clusters, with 51/52 (98%) attending training. Overall, 12/27 (44.4%) SWAL and 9/25 (36.0%) SWAL plus desk clusters implemented all main intervention strategies. Across remaining clusters, the level of intervention implementation varied. Those in the SWAL (n = 8 (29.6%) clusters, 80 (32.1%) participants) and SWAL plus desk (n = 5 (20.0%) clusters, 41 (17.1%) participants) intervention groups who implemented and engaged with the most intervention strategies and had the highest percentage of cluster implementation and engagement with all intervention strategies sat for 30.9 (95% CI -53.9 to -7.9, p = 0.01) and 75.6 (95% CI -103.6 to -47.7, p < 0.001) fewer minutes/day respectively compared to the control group at 12 month follow up. These differences were larger than the complete case analysis. The differences in sitting time observed for the medium and low levels were similar to the complete case analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Most intervention strategies were delivered to some extent across the clusters although there was large variation. Superior effects for sitting reduction were seen for those intervention groups who implemented and engaged with the most intervention components and had the highest level of cluster implementation and engagement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN11618007. Registered on 24 January 2018. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTNISRCTN11618007 .