A randomised-controlled feasibility study of the REgulate your SItting Time (RESIT) intervention for reducing sitting time in individuals with type 2 diabetes: study protocol

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).

Consolidated guidance for behavioral intervention pilot and feasibility studies

BACKGROUND

In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences.

METHODS

To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of a well-known PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences.

RESULTS

A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the three-round Delphi survey (round 1, N = 46; round 2, N = 24; round 3, N = 22). A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (intervention design, study design, conduct of trial, implementation of intervention, statistical analysis, and reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading.

CONCLUSION

We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

Expert Perspectives on Pilot and Feasibility Studies: A Delphi Study and Consolidation of Considerations for Behavioral Interventions

Background

In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences.

Methods

To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of well-know PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences.

Results

A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 50 (10.1%) of which completed all three rounds, representing 60 (37.3%) of the 161 identified PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations. A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (Intervention Design, Study Design, Conduct of Trial, Implementation of Intervention, Statistical Analysis and Reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading.

Conclusion

We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

The Frail-LESS (LEss Sitting and Sarcopenia in Frail older adults) intervention to improve sarcopenia and maintain independent living via reductions in prolonged sitting: a randomised controlled feasibility trial protocol

BACKGROUND

Sarcopenia is a progressive and generalised loss of muscle mass and function with advancing age and is a major contributor to frailty. These conditions lead to functional disability, loss of independence, and lower quality of life. Sedentary behaviour is adversely associated with sarcopenia and frailty. Reducing and breaking up sitting should thus be explored as an intervention target for their management. The primary aim of this study, therefore, is to examine the feasibility, safety, and acceptability of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) that evaluates a remotely delivered intervention to improve sarcopenia and independent living via reducing and breaking up sitting in frail older adults.

METHODS

This mixed-methods randomised controlled feasibility trial will recruit 60 community-dwelling older adults aged ≥ 65 years with very mild or mild frailty. After baseline measures, participants will be randomised to receive the Frail-LESS (LEss Sitting and Sarcopenia in Frail older adults) intervention or serve as controls (usual care) for 6 months. Frail-LESS is a remotely delivered intervention comprising of tailored feedback on sitting, information on the health risks of excess sitting, supported goal setting and action planning, a wearable device that tracks inactive time and provides alerts to move, health coaching, and peer support. Feasibility will be assessed in terms of recruitment, retention and data completion rates. A process evaluation will assess intervention acceptability, safety, and fidelity of the trial. The following measures will be taken at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months: sitting, standing, and stepping using a thigh-worn activPAL4 device, sarcopenia (via hand grip strength, muscle mass, and physical function), mood, wellbeing, and quality of life.

DISCUSSION

This study will determine the feasibility, safety, and acceptability of evaluating a remote intervention to reduce and break up sitting to support improvements in sarcopenia and independent living in frail older adults. A future definitive RCT to determine intervention effectiveness will be informed by the study findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN, ISRCTN17158017; Registered 6 August 2021, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN17158017.

Sedentary Behaviour-A Target for the Prevention and Management of Cardiovascular Disease

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is highly prevalent and can lead to disability and premature mortality. Sedentary behaviour, defined as a low energy expenditure while sitting or lying down, has been identified as an independent risk factor for CVD. This article discusses (1) the association of total sedentary time and patterns of accumulating sedentary time with CVD risk markers, CVD incidence and mortality; (2) acute experimental evidence regarding the acute effects of reducing and breaking up sedentary time on CVD risk markers; and (3) the effectiveness of longer-term sedentary behaviour interventions on CVD risk. Findings suggest that under rigorously controlled laboratory and free-living conditions, breaking up sedentary time improves cardiovascular risk markers in individuals who are healthy, overweight or obese, or have impaired cardiovascular health. Breaking up sedentary time with walking may have the most widespread benefits, whereas standing breaks may be less effective, especially in healthy individuals. There is also growing evidence that sedentary behaviour interventions may benefit cardiovascular risk in the longer term (i.e., weeks to months). Reducing and breaking up sedentary time may, therefore, be considered a target for preventing and managing CVD. Further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of sedentary behaviour interventions over the long-term to appropriately inform guidelines for the management of CVD.

A-REST (Activity to Reduce Excessive Sitting Time): A Feasibility Trial to Reduce Prolonged Sitting in Police Staff

The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of a theory-derived sedentary workplace intervention for police office staff. Twenty-four staff participated in an 8-week intervention (single arm, pre-post design) incorporating an education session, team competition with quick response (QR) codes, team trophy, weekly leaderboard newsletters, a self-monitoring phone app, and electronic prompt tools. The intervention supported participants to reduce and break up their sitting time with three minutes of incidental movement every 30 min at work. Feasibility and acceptability were assessed using mixed methods via the RE-AIM QuEST and PRECIS-2 frameworks. The intervention was highly pragmatic in terms of eligibility, organisation, adherence, outcome, and analysis. It was slightly less pragmatic on recruitment and setting. Delivery and follow-up were more explanatory. Reach and adoption indicators demonstrated feasibility among police staff, across a range of departments, who were demographically similar to participants in previous office-based multi-component interventions. The intervention was delivered mostly as planned with minor deviations from protocol (implementation fidelity). Participants perceived the intervention components as highly acceptable. Results showed improvements in workplace sitting and standing, as well as small improvements in weight and positive affect. Evaluation of the intervention in a fully powered randomised controlled trial to assess behaviour and health outcomes is recommended.

Systematic review of process evaluations of interventions in trials investigating sedentary behaviour in adults

OBJECTIVES

To 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).

DESIGN

Systematic review and narrative synthesis underpinned by the Medical Research Council process evaluation framework.

DATA SOURCES

Databases 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 CRITERIA

We 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 SYNTHESIS

Two 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.

RESULTS

17 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).

DISCUSSION

Intervention 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 NUMBER

CRD42018087403.