Chair based exercise in community settings: a cluster randomised feasibility study

Background: Some older people who find standard exercise programmes too strenuous may be encouraged to exercise while remaining seated - chair based exercises (CBE). We previously developed a consensus CBE programme (CCBE) following a modified Delphi process. We firstly needed to test the feasibility and acceptability of this treatment approach and explore how best to evaluate it before undertaking a definitive trial. Methods: A feasibility study with a cluster randomised controlled trial component was undertaken to 1. Examine the acceptability, feasibility and tolerability of the intervention and 2. Assess the feasibility of running a trial across 12 community settings (4 day centres, 4 care homes, 4 community groups). Centres were randomised to either CCBE, group reminiscence or usual care. Outcomes were collected to assess the feasibility of the trial parameters: level of recruitment interest and eligibility, randomisation, adverse events, retention, completion of health outcomes, missing data and delivery of the CCBE. Semi- structured interviews were conducted with participants and care staff following the intervention to explore acceptability. Results: 48% (89 out of 184 contacted) of eligible centres were interested in participating with 12 recruited purposively. 73% (94) of the 128 older people screened consented to take part with 83 older people then randomised following mobility testing. Recruitment required greater staffing levels and resources due to 49% of participants requiring a consultee declaration. There was a high dropout rate (40%) primarily due to participants no longer attending the centres. The CCBE intervention was delivered once a week in day centres and community groups and twice a week in care homes. Older people and care staff found the CCBE intervention largely acceptable. Conclusion: There was a good level of interest from centres and older people and the CCBE intervention was largely welcomed. The trial design and governance procedures would need to be revised to maximise recruitment and retention. If the motivation for a future trial is physical health then this study has identified that further work to develop the CCBE delivery model is warranted to ensure it can be delivered at a frequency to elicit physiological change. If the motivation for a future trial is psychological outcomes then this study has identified that the current delivery model is feasible

Children’s sedentary behaviour: descriptive epidemiology and associations with objectively-measured sedentary time

Background: Little is known regarding the patterning and socio-demographic distribution of multiple sedentary behaviours in children. The aims of this study were to: 1) describe the leisure-time sedentary behaviour of 9-10 year old British children, and 2) establish associations with objectively-measured sedentary time. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis in the SPEEDY study (Sport, Physical activity and Eating behaviour: Environmental Determinants in Young people) (N=1513, 44.3% boys). Twelve leisure-time sedentary behaviours were assessed by questionnaire. Objectively-measured leisure-time sedentary time (Actigraph GT1M, <100 counts/minute) was assessed over 7 days. Differences by sex and socioeconomic status (SES) in self-reported sedentary behaviours were tested using Kruskal-Wallis tests. The association between objectively-measured sedentary time and the separate sedentary behaviours (continuous (minutes) and categorised into 'none' 'low' or 'high' participation) was assessed using multi-level linear regression. Results: Sex differences were observed for time spent in most sedentary behaviours (all p ≤ 0.02), except computer use. Girls spent more time in combined non-screen sedentary behaviour (median, interquartile range: girls: 770.0 minutes, 390.0-1230.0; boys: 725.0, 365.0 - 1182.5; p = 0.003), whereas boys spent more time in screen-based behaviours (girls: 540.0, 273.0 - 1050.0; boys: 885.0, 502.5 - 1665.0; p < 0.001). Time spent in five non-screen behaviours differed by SES, with higher values in those of higher SES (all p ≤ 0.001). Regression analyses with continuous exposures indicated that reading (β = 0.1, p < 0.001) and watching television (β = 0.04, p < 0.01) were positively associated with objectively-measured sedentary time, whilst playing board games (β = -0.12, p < 0.05) was negatively associated. Analysed in categorical form, sitting and talking (vs. none: 'low' β = 26.1,ns; 'high' 30.9, p < 0.05), playing video games (vs. none: 'low' β = 49.1, p < 0.01; 'high' 60.2, p < 0.01) and watching television (vs. lowest tertile: middle β = 22.2,ns; highest β = 31.9, p < 0.05) were positively associated with objectively-measured sedentary time whereas talking on the phone (vs. none: 'low' β = -38.5, p < 0.01; 'high' -60.2, p < 0.01) and using a computer/internet (vs. none: 'low' β = -30.7, p < 0.05; 'high' -4.2,ns) were negatively associated. Conclusions: Boys and girls and children of different socioeconomic backgrounds engage in different leisure-time sedentary behaviours. Whilst a number of behaviours may be predictive of total sedentary time, collectively they explain little overall variance. Future studies should consider a wide range of sedentary behaviours and incorporate objective measures to quantify sedentary time where possible

Walk with Me: a protocol for a pilot RCT of a peer-led walking programme to increase physical activity in inactive older adults

Background: Levels of physical activity decline with age. Some of the most disadvantaged individuals in society, such as those from lower socio-economic position, are also the most inactive. Increasing physical activity levels, particularly among those most inactive, is a public health priority. Peer-led physical activity interventions may offer a model to increase physical activity in the older adult population. This study aims to test the feasibility of a peer-led, multicomponent physical activity intervention in socio-economically disadvantaged community dwelling older adults. Methods: The Medical Research Council framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions will be used to design and test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a multicomponent peer-led physical activity intervention. Data will be collected at baseline, immediately after the intervention (12 weeks) and 6 months after baseline measures. The pilot RCT will provide information on recruitment of peer mentors and participants and attrition rates, intervention fidelity, and data on the variability of the primary outcome (minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity measured with an accelerometer). The pilot trail will also assess the acceptability of the intervention and identify potential resources needed to undertake a definitive study. Data analyses will be descriptive and include an evaluation of eligibility, recruitment, and retention rates. The findings will be used to estimate the sample size required for a definitive trial. A detailed process evaluation using qualitative and quantitative methods will be conducted with a variety of stakeholders to identify areas of success and necessary improvements. Discussion: This paper describes the protocol for the ‘Walk with Me’ pilot RCT which will provide the information necessary to inform the design and delivery of a fully powered trial should the Walk with Me intervention prove feasible

Positive and negative well-being and objectively measured sedentary behaviour in older adults: evidence from three cohorts

Background: Sedentary behaviour is related to poorer health independently of time spent in moderate to vigorous physical activity. The aim of this study was to investigate whether wellbeing or symptoms of anxiety or depression predict sedentary behaviour in older adults. Method: Participants were drawn from the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936 (LBC1936) (n = 271), and the West of Scotland Twenty-07 1950s (n = 309) and 1930s (n = 118) cohorts. Sedentary outcomes, sedentary time, and number of sit-to-stand transitions, were measured with a three-dimensional accelerometer (activPAL activity monitor) worn for 7 days. In the Twenty-07 cohorts, symptoms of anxiety and depression were assessed in 2008 and sedentary outcomes were assessed ~ 8 years later in 2015 and 2016. In the LBC1936 cohort, wellbeing and symptoms of anxiety and depression were assessed concurrently with sedentary behaviour in 2015 and 2016. We tested for an association between wellbeing, anxiety or depression and the sedentary outcomes using multivariate regression analysis. Results: We observed no association between wellbeing or symptoms of anxiety and the sedentary outcomes. Symptoms of depression were positively associated with sedentary time in the LBC1936 and Twenty-07 1950s cohort, and negatively associated with number of sit-to-stand transitions in the LBC1936. Meta-analytic estimates of the association between depressive symptoms and sedentary time or number of sit-to-stand transitions, adjusted for age, sex, BMI, long-standing illness, and education, were β = 0.11 (95% CI = 0.03, 0.18) and β = − 0.11 (95% CI = − 0.19, −0.03) respectively. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that depressive symptoms are positively associated with sedentary behavior. Future studies should investigate the causal direction of this association