'On Your Feet to Earn Your Seat': update to randomised controlled trial protocol

Feasibility of a Health Coach Intervention to Reduce Sitting Time and Improve Physical Functioning Among Breast Cancer Survivors: Pilot Intervention Study

BACKGROUND

Sedentary behavior among breast cancer survivors is associated with increased risk of poor physical function and worse quality of life. While moderate to vigorous physical activity can improve outcomes for cancer survivors, many are unable to engage in that intensity of physical activity. Decreasing sitting time may be a more feasible behavioral target to potentially mitigate the impact of cancer and its treatments.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility and preliminary impact of an intervention to reduce sitting time on changes to physical function and quality of life in breast cancer survivors, from baseline to a 3-month follow-up.

METHODS

Female breast cancer survivors with self-reported difficulties with physical function received one-on-one, in-person personalized health coaching sessions aimed at reducing sitting time. At baseline and follow-up, participants wore the activPAL (thigh-worn accelerometer; PAL Technologies) for 3 months and completed physical function tests (4-Meter Walk Test, Timed Up and Go, and 30-Second Chair Stand) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) self-reported outcomes. Changes in physical function and sedentary behavior outcomes were assessed by linear mixed models.

RESULTS

On average, participants (n=20) were aged 64.5 (SD 9.4) years; had a BMI of 30.4 (SD 4.5) kg/m2; and identified as Black or African American (n=3, 15%), Hispanic or Latina (n=4, 20%), and non-Hispanic White (n=14, 55%). Average time since diagnosis was 5.8 (SD 2.2) years with participants receiving chemotherapy (n=8, 40%), radiotherapy (n=18, 90%), or endocrine therapy (n=17, 85%). The intervention led to significant reductions in sitting time: activPAL average daily sitting time decreased from 645.7 (SD 72.4) to 532.7 (SD 142.1; β=-112.9; P=.001) minutes and average daily long sitting bouts (bout length ≥20 min) decreased from 468.3 (SD 94.9) to 366.9 (SD 150.4; β=-101.4; P=.002) minutes. All physical function tests had significant improvements: on average, 4-Meter Walk Test performance decreased from 4.23 (SD 0.95) to 3.61 (SD 2.53; β=-.63; P=.002) seconds, Timed Up and Go performance decreased from 10.30 (SD 3.32) to 8.84 (SD 1.58; β=-1.46; P=.003) seconds, and 30-Second Chair Stand performance increased from 9.75 (SD 2.81) to 13.20 completions (SD 2.53; β=3.45; P<.001). PROMIS self-reported physical function score improved from 44.59 (SD 4.40) to 47.12 (SD 5.68; β=2.53; P=.05) and average fatigue decreased from 52.51 (SD 10.38) to 47.73 (SD 8.43; β=-4.78; P=.02).

CONCLUSIONS

This 3-month pilot study suggests that decreasing time spent sitting may be helpful for breast cancer survivors experiencing difficulties with physical function and fatigue. Reducing sitting time is a novel and potentially more feasible approach to improving health and quality of life in cancer survivors.

The search for the ejecting chair: a mixed-methods analysis of tool use in a sedentary behavior intervention

Research is needed on interventions targeting sedentary behavior with appropriate behavior-change tools. The current study used convergent sequential mixed methods (QUAN + qual) to explore tool use during a edentary behavior intervention. Data came from a two-arm randomized sedentary behavior pilot intervention. Participants used a number of intervention tools (e.g., prompts and standing desks). Separate mixed-effects regression models explored associations between change in number of tools and frequency of tool use with two intervention targets: change in sitting time and number of sit-to-stand transitions overtime. Qualitative data explored participants' attitudes towards intervention tools. There was a significant relationship between change in total tool use and sitting time after adjusting for number of tools (β = -12.86, p = .02), demonstrating that a one-unit increase in tool use was associated with an almost 13 min reduction in sitting time. In contrast, there was a significant positive association between change in number of tools and sitting time after adjusting for frequency of tool use (β = 63.70, p = .001), indicating that increasing the number of tools without increasing frequency of tool use was associated with more sitting time. Twenty-four semistructured interviews were coded and a thematic analysis revealed four themes related to tool use: (a) prompts to disrupt behavior; (b) tools matching the goal; (c) tools for sit-to-stand were ineffective; and (d) tool use evolved over time. Participants who honed in on effective tools were more successful in reducing sitting time. Tools for participants to increase sit-to-stand transitions were largely ineffective. This study is registered at clincialtrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02544867.

Interrupting Sitting Time in Postmenopausal Women: Protocol for the Rise for Health Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Many older adults spend the majority of their waking hours sitting, which increases their risk of chronic diseases. Given the challenges that many older adults face when engaging in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, understanding the health benefits of decreasing sitting time and increasing the number of sit-to-stand transitions is needed to address this growing public health concern.

Objective

The aim of this 3-arm randomized controlled trial is to investigate how changes in sitting time and brief sit-to-stand transitions impact biomarkers of healthy aging and physical, emotional, and cognitive functioning compared with a healthy attention control arm.

Methods

Sedentary and postmenopausal women (N=405) will be recruited and randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 study conditions for 3 months: healthy living attention control (Healthy Living), reduce sitting time (Reduce Sitting), and increase sit-to-stand transitions (Increase Transitions). Assessments conducted at baseline and 3 months included fasting blood draw, blood pressure, anthropometric measurements, physical functioning, cognitive testing, and 7 days of a thigh-worn accelerometer (activPAL) and a hip-worn accelerometer (ActiGraph). Blood-based biomarkers of healthy aging included those associated with glycemic control (glycated hemoglobin, fasting plasma insulin and glucose, and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance).

Results

Recruitment began in May 2018. The intervention is ongoing, with data collection expected to continue through the end of 2022.

Conclusions

The Rise for Health study is designed to test whether 2 different approaches to interrupting sitting time can improve healthy aging in postmenopausal women. Results from this study may inform the development of sedentary behavior guidelines and interventions to reduce sitting time in older adults.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03473145; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03473145

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/28684

Interventions to address sedentary behaviour for older adults: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Sedentary behaviour is associated with increased risk for lower health status and all-cause mortality. Older adults spend up to 75%, on average, of their day sedentary, however little is known about interventions designed to decrease sitting time for this population.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted to broadly determine what is known about sedentary behaviour interventions for older adults. Electronic databases were searched for articles with eligibility criteria including: (1) interventions containing strategies to decrease sedentary behaviour, (2) adults ≥60 years of age, and (3) reported outcome measures related to sedentary behaviour.

RESULTS

A total of 32 articles met the inclusion criteria. While methodological quality and intervention characteristics varied among the studies, the majority of interventions used a multi-component approach. Interventions involved a variety of behavioural change strategies with goal setting, information and self-monitoring the most frequently used. Of the 20 studies reporting results, 80% (n = 16) found at least one significant change in sedentary behaviour.

CONCLUSION

Findings from this scoping review suggest that sedentary behaviour can be reduced in community-dwelling older adults through multi-component targeted interventions. Future work is needed to examine sedentary behaviour interventions for adults >75 years and for persons living in long-term care institutions.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONOlder adults spend up to 75% of their day sedentary and are at an increased risk for chronic conditions, functional limitations, and mortality.Multi-component sedentary behaviour interventions, such as education, physical activity, and activity monitoring should be implemented for older adults.When designing interventions, incorporating goal-setting, self-monitoring and other behaviour change strategies can reduce sitting time for older adults.

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work

BACKGROUND

A large number of people are employed in sedentary occupations. Physical inactivity and excessive sitting at workplaces have been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and all-cause mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions to reduce sitting at work compared to no intervention or alternative interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, OSH UPDATE, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to 9 August 2017. We also screened reference lists of articles and contacted authors to find more studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over RCTs, cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs), and quasi-RCTs of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or measured using devices such as an accelerometer-inclinometer and duration and number of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more. We considered energy expenditure, total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), time spent standing at work, work productivity and adverse events as secondary outcomes.

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 authors for additional data where required.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 34 studies - including two cross-over RCTs, 17 RCTs, seven cluster-RCTs, and eight controlled before-and-after studies - with a total of 3,397 participants, all from high-income countries. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (16 studies), workplace policy changes (four studies), information and counselling (11 studies), and multi-component interventions (four studies). One study included both physical workplace changes and information and counselling components. We did not find any studies that specifically investigated the effects of standing meetings or walking meetings on sitting time.Physical workplace changesInterventions using sit-stand desks, either alone or in combination with information and counselling, reduced sitting time at work on average by 100 minutes per workday at short-term follow-up (up to three months) compared to sit-desks (95% confidence interval (CI) -116 to -84, 10 studies, low-quality evidence). The pooled effect of two studies showed sit-stand desks reduced sitting time at medium-term follow-up (3 to 12 months) by an average of 57 minutes per day (95% CI -99 to -15) compared to sit-desks. Total sitting time (including sitting at and outside work) also decreased with sit-stand desks compared to sit-desks (mean difference (MD) -82 minutes/day, 95% CI -124 to -39, two studies) as did the duration of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -53 minutes/day, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies, very low-quality evidence).We found no significant difference between the effects of standing desks and sit-stand desks on reducing sitting at work. Active workstations, such as treadmill desks or cycling desks, had unclear or inconsistent effects on sitting time.Workplace policy changesWe found no significant effects for implementing walking strategies on workplace sitting time at short-term (MD -15 minutes per day, 95% CI -50 to 19, low-quality evidence, one study) and medium-term (MD -17 minutes/day, 95% CI -61 to 28, one study) follow-up. Short breaks (one to two minutes every half hour) reduced time spent sitting at work on average by 40 minutes per day (95% CI -66 to -15, one study, low-quality evidence) compared to long breaks (two 15-minute breaks per workday) at short-term follow-up.Information and counsellingProviding information, feedback, counselling, or all of these resulted in no significant change in time spent sitting at work at short-term follow-up (MD -19 minutes per day, 95% CI -57 to 19, two studies, low-quality evidence). However, the reduction was significant at medium-term follow-up (MD -28 minutes per day, 95% CI -51 to -5, two studies, low-quality evidence).Computer prompts combined with information resulted in no significant change in sitting time at work at short-term follow-up (MD -14 minutes per day, 95% CI -39 to 10, three studies, low-quality evidence), but at medium-term follow-up they produced a significant reduction (MD -55 minutes per day, 95% CI -96 to -14, one study). Furthermore, computer prompting resulted in a significant decrease in the average number (MD -1.1, 95% CI -1.9 to -0.3, one study) and duration (MD -74 minutes per day, 95% CI -124 to -24, one study) of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more.Computer prompts with instruction to stand reduced sitting at work on average by 14 minutes per day (95% CI 10 to 19, one study) more than computer prompts with instruction to walk at least 100 steps at short-term follow-up.We found no significant reduction in workplace sitting time at medium-term follow-up following mindfulness training (MD -23 minutes per day, 95% CI -63 to 17, one study, low-quality evidence). Similarly a single study reported no change in sitting time at work following provision of highly personalised or contextualised information and less personalised or contextualised information. One study found no significant effects of activity trackers on sitting time at work.Multi-component interventions Combining multiple interventions had significant but heterogeneous effects on sitting time at work (573 participants, three studies, very low-quality evidence) and on time spent in prolonged sitting bouts (two studies, very low-quality evidence) at short-term follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present there is low-quality evidence that the use of sit-stand desks reduce workplace sitting at short-term and medium-term follow-ups. However, there is no evidence on their effects on sitting over longer follow-up periods. Effects of other types of interventions, including workplace policy changes, provision of information and counselling, and multi-component interventions, are mostly inconsistent. The quality of evidence is low to very low for most interventions, mainly because of limitations in study protocols and small sample sizes. There is a need for larger cluster-RCTs with longer-term follow-ups to determine the effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce sitting time at work.

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work

BACKGROUND

A large number of people are employed in sedentary occupations. Physical inactivity and excessive sitting at workplaces have been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and all-cause mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions to reduce sitting at work compared to no intervention or alternative interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, OSH UPDATE, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to 9 August 2017. We also screened reference lists of articles and contacted authors to find more studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over RCTs, cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs), and quasi-RCTs of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or measured using devices such as an accelerometer-inclinometer and duration and number of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more. We considered energy expenditure, total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), time spent standing at work, work productivity and adverse events as secondary outcomes.

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 authors for additional data where required.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 34 studies - including two cross-over RCTs, 17 RCTs, seven cluster-RCTs, and eight controlled before-and-after studies - with a total of 3,397 participants, all from high-income countries. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (16 studies), workplace policy changes (four studies), information and counselling (11 studies), and multi-component interventions (four studies). One study included both physical workplace changes and information and counselling components. We did not find any studies that specifically investigated the effects of standing meetings or walking meetings on sitting time.Physical workplace changesInterventions using sit-stand desks, either alone or in combination with information and counselling, reduced sitting time at work on average by 100 minutes per workday at short-term follow-up (up to three months) compared to sit-desks (95% confidence interval (CI) -116 to -84, 10 studies, low-quality evidence). The pooled effect of two studies showed sit-stand desks reduced sitting time at medium-term follow-up (3 to 12 months) by an average of 57 minutes per day (95% CI -99 to -15) compared to sit-desks. Total sitting time (including sitting at and outside work) also decreased with sit-stand desks compared to sit-desks (mean difference (MD) -82 minutes/day, 95% CI -124 to -39, two studies) as did the duration of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -53 minutes/day, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies, very low-quality evidence).We found no significant difference between the effects of standing desks and sit-stand desks on reducing sitting at work. Active workstations, such as treadmill desks or cycling desks, had unclear or inconsistent effects on sitting time.Workplace policy changesWe found no significant effects for implementing walking strategies on workplace sitting time at short-term (MD -15 minutes per day, 95% CI -50 to 19, low-quality evidence, one study) and medium-term (MD -17 minutes/day, 95% CI -61 to 28, one study) follow-up. Short breaks (one to two minutes every half hour) reduced time spent sitting at work on average by 40 minutes per day (95% CI -66 to -15, one study, low-quality evidence) compared to long breaks (two 15-minute breaks per workday) at short-term follow-up.Information and counsellingProviding information, feedback, counselling, or all of these resulted in no significant change in time spent sitting at work at short-term follow-up (MD -19 minutes per day, 95% CI -57 to 19, two studies, low-quality evidence). However, the reduction was significant at medium-term follow-up (MD -28 minutes per day, 95% CI -51 to -5, two studies, low-quality evidence).Computer prompts combined with information resulted in no significant change in sitting time at work at short-term follow-up (MD -10 minutes per day, 95% CI -45 to 24, two studies, low-quality evidence), but at medium-term follow-up they produced a significant reduction (MD -55 minutes per day, 95% CI -96 to -14, one study). Furthermore, computer prompting resulted in a significant decrease in the average number (MD -1.1, 95% CI -1.9 to -0.3, one study) and duration (MD -74 minutes per day, 95% CI -124 to -24, one study) of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more.Computer prompts with instruction to stand reduced sitting at work on average by 14 minutes per day (95% CI 10 to 19, one study) more than computer prompts with instruction to walk at least 100 steps at short-term follow-up.We found no significant reduction in workplace sitting time at medium-term follow-up following mindfulness training (MD -23 minutes per day, 95% CI -63 to 17, one study, low-quality evidence). Similarly a single study reported no change in sitting time at work following provision of highly personalised or contextualised information and less personalised or contextualised information. One study found no significant effects of activity trackers on sitting time at work.Multi-component interventions Combining multiple interventions had significant but heterogeneous effects on sitting time at work (573 participants, three studies, very low-quality evidence) and on time spent in prolonged sitting bouts (two studies, very low-quality evidence) at short-term follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present there is low-quality evidence that the use of sit-stand desks reduce workplace sitting at short-term and medium-term follow-ups. However, there is no evidence on their effects on sitting over longer follow-up periods. Effects of other types of interventions, including workplace policy changes, provision of information and counselling, and multi-component interventions, are mostly inconsistent. The quality of evidence is low to very low for most interventions, mainly because of limitations in study protocols and small sample sizes. There is a need for larger cluster-RCTs with longer-term follow-ups to determine the effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce sitting time at work.

On Your Feet to Earn Your Seat: pilot RCT of a theory-based sedentary behaviour reduction intervention for older adults

Background

Of all age groups, older adults spend most of the time sitting and are least physically active. This sequential, mixed-methods feasibility study used a randomised controlled trial design to assess methods for trialling a habit-based intervention to displace older adults’ sedentary behaviour with light activity and explore impact on behavioural outcomes.

Methods

Eligibility criteria were age 60–74 years, retired, and ≥6 h/day leisure sitting. Data were collected across four sites in England. The intervention comprised a booklet outlining 15 ‘tips’ for disrupting sedentary habits and integrating activity habits into normally inactive settings, and eight weekly self-monitoring sheets. The control was a non-habit-based factsheet promoting activity and sedentary reduction. A computer-generated 1:1 block-randomisation schedule was used, with participants blinded to allocation. Participants self-reported sedentary behaviour (two indices), sedentary habit, physical activity (walking, moderate, vigorous activity) and activity habit, at pre-treatment baseline, 8- and 12-week follow-ups and were interviewed at 12 weeks. Primary feasibility outcomes were attrition, adverse events and intervention adherence. The secondary outcome was behavioural change.

Results

Of 104 participants consented, 103 were randomised (intervention N = 52, control N = 51). Of 98 receiving allocated treatment, 91 (93%; intervention N = 45; control N = 46) completed the trial. One related adverse event was reported in the intervention group. Mean per-tip adherence across 7 weeks was ≥50% for 9/15 tips. Qualitative data suggested acceptability of procedures, and, particularly among intervention recipients, the allocated treatment. Both groups appeared to reduce sedentary behaviour and increase their physical activity, but there were no apparent differences between groups in the extent of change.

Conclusions

Trial methods were acceptable and feasible, but the intervention conferred no apparent advantage over control, though it was not trialled among the most sedentary and inactive population for whom it was developed. Further development of the intervention may be necessary prior to a large-scale definitive trial. One possible refinement would combine elements of the intervention with an informational approach to enhance effectiveness.

Trial registration

ISRCTN47901994 (registration date: 16th January 2014; trial end date 30th April 2015)

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40814-017-0139-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Association of Maximum Temperature With Sedentary Time in Older British Men

Background

Sedentary behavior is very common in older adults and a risk factor for mortality. Understanding determinants of sedentary behavior may help in defining strategies aimed to reduce the time spent sedentary. The degree of difference in sedentary time attributable to varying temperatures has not been yet estimated in older men.

Methods

Men aged 71 to 91 years participating in an established UK population-based cohort study were invited to wear an Actigraph GT3X accelerometer for 1 week in 2010–12. Outcome was sedentary time (<1.5 Metabolic Equivalent of Task) in minutes per day. Associations between daily outdoor maximum temperature and accelerometer-measured sedentary time were estimated using multilevel models.

Results

43% (1361/3137) of invited men participated in the study and provided adequate data. Men spent on average 615 minutes in sedentary time per day (72% of the total accelerometer-wear time). After adjusting for covariates, men spent 26 minutes more per day (P < .001) in sedentary time when temperatures were in the lowest (–3.5; 9.2°C) versus highest quintile (19.1; 29.5°C).

Conclusions

Sedentary time in older adults is highest at lowest temperatures, typically recorded in winter. Findings are relevant for guidelines: interventions may consider targeting older men in winter providing recommendations for minimizing sedentariness on daily basis.