Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Johansson JF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8804646 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Johansson Jessica Faye JF Lam Natalie N Ozer Seline S Hall Jennifer J Morton Sarah S English Coralie C Fitzsimons Claire F CF Lawton Rebecca R Forster Anne A Clarke David D

BMJ open 20220131 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>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).<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and narrative synthesis underpinned by the Medical Research Council proc ...[more]

PMID: 35105631

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSedentary behaviour is defined as any waking behaviour characterised by low energy expenditure ≤1.5 metabolic equivalents while in a sitting, lying or reclining posture. The expanding evidence base suggests that sedentary behaviour may have a detrimental effect on health, well-being and is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. We aim to review process evaluations of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which included a measure of sedentary behaviour in adults in order to develop an understanding of intervention content, mechanisms of impact, implementation and delivery approaches and contexts, in which interventions were reported to be effective or effective. A secondary aim is to summarise participants, family and staff experiences of such interventions.Methods and analysisTen electronic databases and reference lists from previous similar reviews will be searched. Eligible studies will be process evaluations of RCTs that measure sedentary behaviour as a primary or secondary outcome in adults. As this review will contribute to a programme to develop a community-based intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour in stroke survivors, interventions delivered in schools, colleges, universities or workplaces will be excluded. Two reviewers will perform study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Disagreements between reviewers will be resolved by a third reviewer. Process evaluation data to be extracted include the aims and methods used in the process evaluation; implementation data; mechanisms of impact; contextual factors; participant, family and staff experiences of the interventions. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidance.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as it is a protocol for a systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Prospero registration numberCRD42018087403.

Project description:ObjectiveProcess evaluations (PEs) alongside randomised controlled trials of complex interventions are valuable because they address questions of for whom, how and why interventions had an impact. We synthesised the methods used in PEs of primary care interventions, and their main findings on implementation barriers and facilitators.DesignSystematic review using the UK Medical Research Council guidance for PE as a guide.Data sourcesAcademic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE and Global Health) were searched from 1998 until June 2018.Eligibility criteriaWe included PE alongside randomised controlled trials of primary care interventions which aimed to improve outcomes for patients with non-communicable diseases.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers screened and conducted the data extraction and synthesis, with a third reviewer checking a sample for quality assurance.Results69 studies were included. There was an overall lack of consistency in how PEs were conducted and reported. The main weakness is that only 30 studies were underpinned by a clear intervention theory often facilitated by the use of existing theoretical frameworks. The main strengths were robust sampling strategies, and the triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data to understand an intervention's mechanisms. Findings were synthesised into three key themes: (1) a fundamental mismatch between what the intervention was designed to achieve and local needs; (2) the required roles and responsibilities of key actors were often not clearly understood; and (3) the health system context-factors such as governance, financing structures and workforce-if unanticipated could adversely impact implementation.ConclusionGreater consistency is needed in the reporting and the methods of PEs, in particular greater use of theoretical frameworks to inform intervention theory. More emphasis on formative research in designing interventions is needed to align the intervention with the needs of local stakeholders, and to minimise unanticipated consequences due to context-specific barriers.Prospero registration numberCRD42016035572.

Project description:BackgroundSedentary behaviour (SB) research has grown exponentially but efficacy for interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour is often contaminated by interventions primarily or co-targeting other behaviours and outcomes. The primary aim of this research therefore, was to systematically review the efficacy of interventions specifically targeting sedentary behaviour reduction, as a sole primary outcome, from randomised control trials in healthy ambulatory adults. This research also sought to identify the successful interventions characteristics, behaviour change techniques (BCT's) and underlying theories, and their relation to intervention effectiveness.MethodsWe followed PRISMA reporting guidelines for this systematic review. Six electronic databases were searched and a grey literature review conducted. Only randomised or cluster randomised controlled trials, from 2000 to 2020, in adult populations with a sole primary outcome of change in sedentary behaviour were included. Data codebooks were developed, data were extracted, and a narrative synthesis and meta-analysis was conducted using mixed methods random effects models.ResultsOf 5589 studies identified, 7 studies met the inclusion criteria. Six studies reported activPAL3 measures of mean daily sitting time, and four reported mean daily standing time, stepping time and number of sedentary breaks. Pooled analysis of weighted mean differences revealed a reduction in mean daily sitting time of -32.4mins CI (-50.3, -14.4), an increase in mean daily standing time of 31.75mins CI (13.7, 49.8), and mean daily stepping time of 9.5mins CI (2.8, 16.3), and an increase in rate of sedentary breaks per day of 3.6 (CI 1.6, 5.6). BCTs used exclusively in two of the three most effective interventions are 'feedback on behaviour' and 'goal setting behaviour' whilst all three most effective interventions included 'instruction on how to perform the behaviour' and 'adding objects to the environment', BCTs which were also used in less effective interventions.ConclusionsAlthough limited by small sample sizes and short follow up periods, this review suggests that interventions specifically designed to change sedentary behaviour, reduce overall daily sitting time by half an hour, with an equivalent increase in standing time, in the short to medium term. Effective characteristics and behaviour change strategies are identified for future development of high quality interventions targeting change in sedentary behaviour.Prospero registrationPROSPERO 2020 CRD42020172457 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020172457.

Project description:PurposeSedentary behavior has been identified as a major health risk. While interventions to reduce time spent sedentary have become increasingly prevalent, the vast majority of this work in adults has been focused on workplace sedentary behavior, and often pairs sedentary reduction interventions with increasing physical activity. As research designed to specifically decrease sedentary time that is not limited to the workplace becomes available, identifying strategies and approaches, along with feasibility and efficacy of these interventions, is warranted.MethodsElectronic databases were searched for sedentary interventions with eligibility criteria including: (a) interventions designed to explicitly reduce sedentary behavior that were not limited to the workplace, (b) outcomes specific to sedentary behavior, (c) adults aged at least 18 years, and (d) written in English.ResultsA total of 767 full-text manuscripts were identified, with thirteen studies meeting all eligibility criteria. While intervention characteristics and methodological quality varied greatly among studies, ten of the thirteen studies observed a significant reduction in objectively measured sitting time post-intervention. In those studies that collected participant feasibility/acceptability data, all reported that the intervention was viewed as "favorable to very favorable," would use again, and that participant burden was quite low, suggesting that these interventions were feasible.ConclusionSedentary behavior interventions not limited to the workplace appear to be largely efficacious. While results varied with respect to the magnitude of the decrease in time spent sedentary, they are encouraging. However, due to the small body of evidence and the variability of study designs, our ability to make overarching statements regarding "best practices" at this time is limited. Well-controlled trials of longer duration with larger samples, using theoretically-based interventions with consistent prescriptions for limiting sedentary time are needed.

Project description:BackgroundNormalization Process Theory (NPT) identifies, characterises and explains key mechanisms that promote and inhibit the implementation, embedding and integration of new health techniques, technologies and other complex interventions. A large body of literature that employs NPT to inform feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions has now emerged. The aims of this review were to review this literature; to identify and characterise the uses and limits of NPT in research on the implementation and integration of healthcare interventions; and to explore NPT's contribution to understanding the dynamics of these processes.MethodsA qualitative systematic review was conducted. We searched Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar for articles with empirical data in peer-reviewed journals that cited either key papers presenting and developing NPT, or the NPT Online Toolkit ( www.normalizationprocess.org ). We included in the review only articles that used NPT as the primary approach to collection, analysis or reporting of data in studies of the implementation of healthcare techniques, technologies or other interventions. A structured data extraction instrument was used, and data were analysed qualitatively.ResultsSearches revealed 3322 citations. We show that after eliminating 2337 duplicates and broken or junk URLs, 985 were screened as titles and abstracts. Of these, 101 were excluded because they did not fit the inclusion criteria for the review. This left 884 articles for full-text screening. Of these, 754 did not fit the inclusion criteria for the review. This left 130 papers presenting results from 108 identifiable studies to be included in the review. NPT appears to provide researchers and practitioners with a conceptual vocabulary for rigorous studies of implementation processes. It identifies, characterises and explains empirically identifiable mechanisms that motivate and shape implementation processes. Taken together, these mean that analyses using NPT can effectively assist in the explanation of the success or failure of specific implementation projects. Ten percent of papers included critiques of some aspect of NPT, with those that did mainly focusing on its terminology. However, two studies critiqued NPT emphasis on agency, and one study critiqued NPT for its normative focus.ConclusionsThis review demonstrates that researchers found NPT useful and applied it across a wide range of interventions. It has been effectively used to aid intervention development and implementation planning as well as evaluating and understanding implementation processes themselves. In particular, NPT appears to have offered a valuable set of conceptual tools to aid understanding of implementation as a dynamic process.

Dataset Information

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

Objectives

Design

Data sources

Eligibility criteria

Data extraction and synthesis

Results

Discussion

Prospero registration number

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets