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

Efficacy of an Online Physical Activity Intervention Coordinated With Routine Clinical Care: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Background Most adults are not achieving recommended levels of physical activity (150 minutes/week, moderate-to-vigorous intensity). Inadequate activity levels are associated with numerous poor health outcomes, and clinical recommendations endorse physical activity in the front-line treatment of obesity, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension. A framework for physical activity prescription and referral has been developed, but has not been widely implemented. This may be due, in part, to the lack of feasible and effective physical activity intervention programs designed to coordinate with clinical care delivery. Objective This manuscript describes the protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) that tests the efficacy of a 13-week online intervention for increasing physical activity in adult primary care patients (aged 21-70 years) reporting inadequate activity levels. The feasibility of implementing specific components of a physical activity clinical referral program, including screening for low activity levels and reporting patient program success to referring physicians, will also be examined. Analyses will include participant perspectives on maintaining physical activity. Methods This pilot study includes a 3-month wait-listed control RCT (1:1 ratio within age strata 21-54 and 55-70 years). After the RCT primary end point at 3 months, wait-listed participants are offered the full intervention and all participants are followed to 6 months after starting the intervention program. Primary RCT outcomes include differences across randomized groups in average step count, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, and sedentary behavior (minutes/day) derived from accelerometers. Maintenance of physical activity changes will be examined for all participants at 6 months after the intervention start. Results Recruitment took place between October 2018 and May 2019 (79 participants were randomized). Data collection was completed in February 2020. Primary data analyses are ongoing. Conclusions The results of this study will inform the development of a clinical referral program for physical activity improvement that combines an online intervention with clinical screening for low activity levels, support for postintervention behavior maintenance, and feedback to the referring physician. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03695016; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03695016. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/18891 </jats:sec

Efficacy of an Online Physical Activity Intervention Coordinated With Routine Clinical Care: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)

BACKGROUND Most adults are not achieving recommended levels of physical activity (150 minutes/week, moderate-to-vigorous intensity). Inadequate activity levels are associated with numerous poor health outcomes, and clinical recommendations endorse physical activity in the front-line treatment of obesity, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension. A framework for physical activity prescription and referral has been developed, but has not been widely implemented. This may be due, in part, to the lack of feasible and effective physical activity intervention programs designed to coordinate with clinical care delivery. OBJECTIVE This manuscript describes the protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) that tests the efficacy of a 13-week online intervention for increasing physical activity in adult primary care patients (aged 21-70 years) reporting inadequate activity levels. The feasibility of implementing specific components of a physical activity clinical referral program, including screening for low activity levels and reporting patient program success to referring physicians, will also be examined. Analyses will include participant perspectives on maintaining physical activity. METHODS This pilot study includes a 3-month wait-listed control RCT (1:1 ratio within age strata 21-54 and 55-70 years). After the RCT primary end point at 3 months, wait-listed participants are offered the full intervention and all participants are followed to 6 months after starting the intervention program. Primary RCT outcomes include differences across randomized groups in average step count, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, and sedentary behavior (minutes/day) derived from accelerometers. Maintenance of physical activity changes will be examined for all participants at 6 months after the intervention start. RESULTS Recruitment took place between October 2018 and May 2019 (79 participants were randomized). Data collection was completed in February 2020. Primary data analyses are ongoing. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study will inform the development of a clinical referral program for physical activity improvement that combines an online intervention with clinical screening for low activity levels, support for postintervention behavior maintenance, and feedback to the referring physician. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03695016; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03695016. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/18891 </sec

Efficacy of an online physical activity intervention coordinated with routine clinical care : Protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial

Background: Most adults are not achieving recommended levels of physical activity (150 minutes/week, moderate-to-vigorous intensity). Inadequate activity levels are associated with numerous poor health outcomes, and clinical recommendations endorse physical activity in the front-line treatment of obesity, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension. A framework for physical activity prescription and referral has been developed, but has not been widely implemented. This may be due, in part, to the lack of feasible and effective physical activity intervention programs designed to coordinate with clinical care delivery. Objective: This manuscript describes the protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) that tests the efficacy of a 13-week online intervention for increasing physical activity in adult primary care patients (aged 21-70 years) reporting inadequate activity levels. The feasibility of implementing specific components of a physical activity clinical referral program, including screening for low activity levels and reporting patient program success to referring physicians, will also be examined. Analyses will include participant perspectives on maintaining physical activity. Methods: This pilot study includes a 3-month wait-listed control RCT (1:1 ratio within age strata 21-54 and 55-70 years). After the RCT primary end point at 3 months, wait-listed participants are offered the full intervention and all participants are followed to 6 months after starting the intervention program. Primary RCT outcomes include differences across randomized groups in average step count, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, and sedentary behavior (minutes/day) derived from accelerometers. Maintenance of physical activity changes will be examined for all participants at 6 months after the intervention start. Results: Recruitment took place between October 2018 and May 2019 (79 participants were randomized). Data collection was completed in February 2020. Primary data analyses are ongoing. Conclusions: The results of this study will inform the development of a clinical referral program for physical activity improvement that combines an online intervention with clinical screening for low activity levels, support for postintervention behavior maintenance, and feedback to the referring physician. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03695016; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03695016. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/1889

Abstract P211: Effect Of An Mobile Health Weight Loss Intervention On Healthy Eating Index Diet Quality: The Smarter Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction: Dietary modification is key to standard behavioral treatment for weight loss. However, few studies assess whether diet quality—the overall healthfulness of the diet—is improved over the course of the intervention. As diet quality is relevant to health separate from its effect on weight, it may be an important endpoint to assess. The purpose of this secondary analysis of a randomized mobile health weight loss trial was to assess whether self-monitoring with automated, personalized feedback (SM+FB) compared to self-monitoring alone (SM) resulted in improved diet quality. Methods: Adults (N=502) with overweight/obesity (n=251 in SM+FB; n=251 SM) were provided calorie, fat gram, and physical activity goals and instructed to weigh daily, wear a Fitbit activity tracker, and self-monitor diet. Feedback messages were sent up to three times daily to SM+FB participants and were based on participant reported intake of calories, fat, and sugar but did not specifically target diet quality. Diet data were collected from two dietary recalls at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months using the Automated Self-Administered system (ASA-24). The Simple Scoring method was used to calculate Healthy Eating Index 2015 (HEI-2015) total scores as it aligns with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Change in diet quality was assessed using two-way repeated measures analysis of variance. Missing dietary data was imputed using last observation carried forward. Analyses used intention to treat. Results: The overall sample was mostly female (79%), white (82.5%), and middle-aged (mean=45.0 years, SD=14.4 years). Baseline HEI-2015 total scores were similar between SM (mean=54.44, SE=0.78) and SM+FB (mean=55.49, SE=0.82) and did not improve for either group over 6 months (SM: mean=55.64, SE=0.77; SM+FB: mean=56.89, SE=0.88) or 12 months (SM: mean=56.21, SE=0.81; SM+FB: mean=56.10, SE=0.88). Group, time, and group by time interaction effects were all non-significant (p&gt;0.003) after Bonferroni adjustment. Discussion: Given that the HEI-2015 total score ranges from 0 to 100 with 74 meeting Healthy People 2020 goals, the diet quality of participants was less than ideal (grade: F) at baseline. The small improvements over time were likely not clinically significant. Future mHealth interventions might consider ways to increase user engagement, customization of additional features beyond feedback, and the addition of more targeted nutritional education in order to improve diet quality. </jats:p

The Impact of a Yearlong Diabetes Prevention Program-Based Lifestyle Intervention on Cardiovascular Health Metrics

Introduction The American Heart Association created “Life’s Simple Seven” metrics to estimate progress toward improving US cardiovascular health in a standardized manner. Given the widespread use of federally funded Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP)-based lifestyle interventions such as the Group Lifestyle Balance (DPP-GLB), evaluation of change in health metrics within such a program is of national interest. This study examined change in cardiovascular health metric scores during the course of a yearlong DPP-GLB intervention. Methods Data were combined from 2 similar randomized trials offering a community based DPP-GLB lifestyle intervention to overweight/obese individuals with prediabetes and/or metabolic syndrome. Pre/post lifestyle intervention participation changes in 5 of the 7 cardiovascular health metrics were examined at 6 and 12 months (BMI, blood pressure, total cholesterol, fasting plasma glucose, physical activity). Smoking was rare and diet was not measured. Results Among 305 participants with complete data (81.8% of 373 eligible adults), significant improvements were demonstrated in all 5 risk factors measured continuously at 6 and 12 months. There were significant positive shifts in the “ideal” and “total” metric scores at both time points. Also noted were beneficial shifts in the proportion of participants across categories for BMI, activity, and blood pressure. Conclusion AHA-metrics could have clinical utility in estimating an individual’s cardiovascular health status and in capturing improvement in cardiometabolic/behavioral risk factors resulting from participation in a community-based translation of the DPP lifestyle intervention. </jats:sec