Why older adults spend time sedentary and break their sedentary behavior: a mixed methods approach using life-logging equipment

Older adults are recommended to reduce their sedentary time to promote healthy ageing. To develop effective interventions identifying when, why, and how older adults are able to change their sitting habits is important. The aim of this mixed-method study was to improve our understanding of reasons for (breaking) sedentary behavior in older adults. Thirty older adults (74.0 [+/- 5.3] years old, 73% women) were asked about their believed reasons for (breaking) sedentary behavior, and about their actual reasons when looking at a personal storyboard with objective records of activPAL monitor data and time-lapse camera pictures showing all their periods of sedentary time in a day. The most often mentioned believed reason for remaining sedentary was television/radio (mentioned by 48.3%), while eating/drinking was most often mentioned as actual reason (96.6%). Only 17.2% believed that food/tea preparation was a reason to break up sitting, while this was an actual reason for 82.8% of the study sample. Results of this study show that there is a discrepancy between believed and actual reasons for (breaking) sedentary behavior. These findings suggest developing interventions utilizing the actual reasons for breaking sedentary behavior to reduce sedentary time in older adults

Exploring the context of sedentary behaviour in older adults (what, where, why, when and with whom)

BACKGROUND: Older adults are the most sedentary segment of the population. Little information is available about the context of sedentary behaviour to inform guidelines and intervention. There is a dearth of information about when, where to intervene and which specific behaviours intervention should target. The aim of this exploratory study was to obtain objective information about what older adults do when sedentary, where and when they are sedentary and in what social context. METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional data collection. Older adults (Mean age = 73.25, SD ± 5.48, median = 72, IQR = 11) volunteers wore activPAL monitors and a Vicon Revue timelapse camera between 1 and 7 days. Periods of sedentary behaviour were identified using the activPAL and the context extracted from the pictures taken during these periods. Analysis of context was conducted using the Sedentary Behaviour International Taxonomy classification system. RESULTS: In total, 52 days from 36 participants were available for analysis. Participants spent 70.1 % of sedentary time at home, 56.9 % of sedentary time on their own and 46.8 % occurred in the afternoon. Seated social activities were infrequent (6.9 % of sedentary bouts) but prolonged (18 % of sedentary time). Participants appeared to frequently have vacant sitting time (41 % of non-screen sedentary time) and screen sitting was prevalent (36 % of total sedentary time). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides valuable information to inform future interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour. Interventions should consider targeting the home environment and focus on the afternoon sitting time, though this needs confirmation in a larger study. Tackling social isolation may also be a target to reduce sedentary time

The SOS-framework (Systems of Sedentary behaviours): an international transdisciplinary consensus framework for the study of determinants, research priorities and policy on sedentary behaviour across the life course: a DEDIPAC-study.

BACKGROUND: Ecological models are currently the most used approaches to classify and conceptualise determinants of sedentary behaviour, but these approaches are limited in their ability to capture the complexity of and interplay between determinants. The aim of the project described here was to develop a transdisciplinary dynamic framework, grounded in a system-based approach, for research on determinants of sedentary behaviour across the life span and intervention and policy planning and evaluation. METHODS: A comprehensive concept mapping approach was used to develop the Systems Of Sedentary behaviours (SOS) framework, involving four main phases: (1) preparation, (2) generation of statements, (3) structuring (sorting and ranking), and (4) analysis and interpretation. The first two phases were undertaken between December 2013 and February 2015 by the DEDIPAC KH team (DEterminants of DIet and Physical Activity Knowledge Hub). The last two phases were completed during a two-day consensus meeting in June 2015. RESULTS: During the first phase, 550 factors regarding sedentary behaviour were listed across three age groups (i.e., youths, adults and older adults), which were reduced to a final list of 190 life course factors in phase 2 used during the consensus meeting. In total, 69 international delegates, seven invited experts and one concept mapping consultant attended the consensus meeting. The final framework obtained during that meeting consisted of six clusters of determinants: Physical Health and Wellbeing (71% consensus), Social and Cultural Context (59% consensus), Built and Natural Environment (65% consensus), Psychology and Behaviour (80% consensus), Politics and Economics (78% consensus), and Institutional and Home Settings (78% consensus). Conducting studies on Institutional Settings was ranked as the first research priority. The view that this framework captures a system-based map of determinants of sedentary behaviour was expressed by 89% of the participants. CONCLUSION: Through an international transdisciplinary consensus process, the SOS framework was developed for the determinants of sedentary behaviour through the life course. Investigating the influence of Institutional and Home Settings was deemed to be the most important area of research to focus on at present and potentially the most modifiable. The SOS framework can be used as an important tool to prioritise future research and to develop policies to reduce sedentary time

Co-Creating Recommendations to Redesign and Promote Strength and Balance Service Provision

Background: Awareness of physical activity guidelines are low, particularly the “forgotten guidelines” of strength and balance. Increasing awareness of guidelines, but also of appropriate local services that can be utilised, is an important step towards active ageing. Co-creation can inform tailored service provision to potentially increase uptake and adherence. The aim was to co-create recommendations to redesign and promote local leisure services, emphasising strength and balance activity provision. Method: Twenty-four ageing and older adults engaged in 10 co-creation workshops. Workshops consisted of interactive tasks, and fieldwork tasks were undertaken externally. Data were collected using field notes, worksheet tasks and facilitator reflections and were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results: Retention and adherence rates were 92% and 85%. Co-creators cited group cohesion, scientific input from experts and perceived knowledge development as enjoyable elements of the process. Four key themes emerged from analysis: (1) localised strategies for awareness raising, (2) recruitment of volunteer champions to increase uptake and maintenance, (3) accessibility of activities, including what they are and when they are, and (4) evaluation of impact. Conclusion: This has been the first study, to our knowledge, to utilise co-creation for informed leisure service provision improvement. Future work should aim to implement these recommendations to ascertain what impact these themes might make

Interventions for reducing sedentary behaviour in community-dwelling older adults

BACKGROUND: Older adults are the most sedentary segment of society, often spending in excess of 8.5 hours a day sitting. Large amounts of time spent sedentary, defined as time spend sitting or in a reclining posture without spending energy, has been linked to an increased risk of chronic diseases, frailty, loss of function, disablement, social isolation, and premature death. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing sedentary behaviour amongst older adults living independently in the community compared to control conditions involving either no intervention or interventions that do not target sedentary behaviour. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, EPPI-Centre databases (Trials Register of Promoting Health Interventions (TRoPHI) and the Obesity and Sedentary behaviour Database), WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 18 January 2021. We also screened the reference lists of included articles and contacted authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs. We included interventions purposefully designed to reduce sedentary time in older adults (aged 60 or over) living independently in the community. We included studies if some of the participants had multiple comorbidities, but excluded interventions that recruited clinical populations specifically (e.g. stroke survivors). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and full-text articles to determine study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional data where required. Any disagreements in study screening or data extraction were settled by a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies in the review, six RCTs and one cluster-RCT, with a total of 397 participants. The majority of participants were female (n = 284), white, and highly educated. All trials were conducted in high-income countries. All studies evaluated individually based behaviour change interventions using a combination of behaviour change techniques such as goal setting, education, and behaviour monitoring or feedback. Four of the seven studies also measured secondary outcomes. The main sources of bias were related to selection bias (N = 2), performance bias (N = 6), blinding of outcome assessment (N = 2), and incomplete outcome data (N = 2) and selective reporting (N=1). The overall risk of bias was judged as unclear. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: The evidence suggests that interventions to change sedentary behaviour in community-dwelling older adults may reduce sedentary time (mean difference (MD) -44.91 min/day, 95% confidence interval (CI) -93.13 to 3.32; 397 participants; 7 studies; I(2) = 73%; low-certainty evidence). We could not pool evidence on the effect of interventions on breaks in sedentary behaviour or time spent in specific domains such as TV time, as data from only one study were available for these outcomes. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: We are uncertain whether interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour have any impact on the physical or mental health outcomes of community-dwelling older adults. We were able to pool change data for the following outcomes. * Physical function (MD 0.14 Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.66; higher score is favourable; 98 participants; 2 studies; I(2) = 26%; low-certainty evidence). * Waist circumference (MD 1.14 cm, 95% CI -1.64 to 3.93; 100 participants; 2 studies; I(2) = 0%; low-certainty evidence). * Fitness (MD -5.16 m in the 6-minute walk test, 95% CI -36.49 to 26.17; higher score is favourable; 80 participants; 2 studies; I(2) = 29%; low-certainty evidence). * Blood pressure: systolic (MD -3.91 mmHg, 95% CI -10.95 to 3.13; 138 participants; 3 studies; I(2) = 73%; very low-certainty evidence) and diastolic (MD -0.06 mmHg, 95% CI -5.72 to 5.60; 138 participants; 3 studies; I(2) = 97%; very low-certainty evidence). * Glucose blood levels (MD 2.20 mg/dL, 95% CI -6.46 to 10.86; 100 participants; 2 studies; I(2) = 0%; low-certainty evidence). No data were available on cognitive function, cost-effectiveness or adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not clear whether interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour are effective at reducing sedentary time in community-dwelling older adults. We are uncertain if these interventions have any impact on the physical or mental health of community-dwelling older adults. There were few studies, and the certainty of the evidence is very low to low, mainly due to inconsistency in findings and imprecision. Future studies should consider interventions aimed at modifying the environment, policy, and social and cultural norms. Future studies should also use device-based measures of sedentary time, recruit larger samples, and gather information about quality of life, cost-effectiveness, and adverse event data

Willin, an upstream component of the Hippo signaling pathway, orchestrates mammalian peripheral nerve fibroblasts

Willin/FRMD6 was first identified in the rat sciatic nerve, which is composed of neurons, Schwann cells, and fibroblasts. Willin is an upstream component of the Hippo signaling pathway, which results in the inactivation of the transcriptional coactivator YAP through Ser127 phosphorylation. This in turn suppresses the expression of genes involved in cell growth, proliferation and cancer development ensuring the control of organ size, cell contact inhibition and apoptosis. Here we show that in the mammalian sciatic nerve, Willin is predominantly expressed in fibroblasts and that Willin expression activates the Hippo signaling cascade and induces YAP translocation from the nucleus to the cytoplasm. In addition within these cells, although it inhibits cellular proliferation, Willin expression induces a quicker directional migration towards scratch closure and an increased expression of factors linked to nerve regeneration. These results show that Willin modulates sciatic nerve fibroblast activity indicating that Willin may have a potential role in the regeneration of the peripheral nervous system.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Implementation of a co-designed physical activity program for older adults: positive impact when delivered at scale

Background: Despite known health benefits of physical activity (PA), older adults remain among the least physically active age group globally with 30–60% not meeting guidelines. In Canada, 87% do not meet recommended guidelines. To influence population health, interventions that are effective in small trials must be disseminated at scale. Despite evidence for efficacy, few PA interventions are scaled up to reach the wider community. In 2015, British Columbia (BC) Ministry of Health released a PA strategy where older adults were identified as a priority. In partnership with the Ministry, the Active Aging Research Team co-created a health promotion program called Choose to Move (CTM). CTM will be implemented in three phases at increasingly greater scale across BC. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of CTM during Phase I (pilot) and Phase II (initial scale up) on PA, mobility, and social connectedness among older adults in BC, Canada. Methods: We used a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation study design, and herein focus on effectiveness. The implementation evaluation will be published as a companion paper elsewhere. Two community delivery partner organizations delivered 56 CTM programs in 26 large and small urban locations across BC. Outcome measurement occurred at 0 (baseline), 3 (mid-intervention) and 6 (post-intervention) months. We collected survey data from all participants (n = 458; province-wide) and also conducted a subset evaluation (n = 209). Results: PA increased significantly during the active intervention phase (baseline-3 months) in younger (60–74 yrs.; + 1.6 days/week; p < 0.001) and older (≥75 yrs.; + 1.0 days/week; p < 0.001) participants. The increase was sustained at 6 months in younger participants only, who remained significantly more active than at baseline (+ 1.4 days/week; p < 0.001). Social exclusion indicators declined significantly in the younger group. Mobility and strength improved significantly at 3 months in the younger group, and in both groups at 6 months. Conclusions: CTM adopted central tenets of implementation science that consider the complicated systems where interventions are delivered to improve public health. In this iteration of CTM we demonstrate that a partner-based health promotion intervention can be effectively implemented across settings to enhance PA, mobility and social connectedness in older adults.Medicine, Faculty ofOther UBCNon UBCFamily Practice, Department ofReviewedFacult