Does a video displaying a stair climbing model increase stair use in a worksite setting?

Nudging Interventions on Stair Use: A Scoping Review

Stair use is a physical activity that can be incorporated into the daily lifestyle of a majority of the population, resulting in several health benefits. Nudges are increasingly used in public health interventions to encourage healthy behaviours such as physical activity in a cost-effective manner. This scoping review aimed to investigate the effect and the characteristics of nudges used on interventions to promote stair use. We reviewed the relevant literature published in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Mendeley and Google Scholar, from January 2009 to May 2022. Eligibility criteria included original studies of any type of design, written in English, targeting healthy adults, reporting nudging interventions, using elevator or escalator as comparators and defining a baseline for comparisons. Initially, 118 publications were identified, and after applying exclusion criteria, 27 articles were included in the analysis. Results showed that most of the nudging interventions had significant positive effect on stair use in several settings. The evidence from this review suggests that incorporating nudges into public health interventions can effectively promote physical activity through increased stair usage. Emphasizing prevention measures in public health interventions may contribute to better health outcomes.

Stair climbing and the incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a population-based prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Stair climbing is a readily available form of physical activity with potential cardioprotective merits. Herein, we investigated the association between stair climbing and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) incidence among Japanese people.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study used data from 7,282 participants, aged 30-84 years, registered in the Suita Study and free from stroke and ischemic heart disease (IHD). Standard approaches were used to detect incident ASCVD events, including cerebral infarction and IHD, during follow-up. Stair climbing was assessed using a baseline questionnaire. We applied the Cox regression to calculate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) of incident ASCVD for climbing stairs in 20-39%, 40-59%, and ≥60% compared to <20% of the time. We adjusted the regression models for age, sex, body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, hypertension, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, lipid profile, chronic kidney disease, and history of cardiac murmur or valvular diseases.

RESULTS

A total of 536 new ASCVD events were detected within a median follow-up period of 16.6 years. In the age- and sex-adjusted model, stair climbing 20-39%, 40-59%, and ≥60% of the time was associated with lower ASCVD incidence: HRs (95% CIs) = 0.72 (0.56, 0.92), 0.86 (0.68, 1.08), and 0.78 (0.61, 0.99), respectively (p-trend = 0.020). The corresponding associations were attenuated after adjusting for lifestyle and clinical factors: HRs (95% CIs) = 0.74 (0.58, 0.95), 0.90 (0.71, 1.13), and 0.89 (0.69, 1.13), respectively (p-trend = 0.152).

CONCLUSION

Frequent stair climbing was associated with lower ASCVD incidence; however, this association was partly explained by lifestyle and clinical factors of participants.

Measuring “Nudgeability”: Development of a Scale on Susceptibility to Physical Activity Nudges among College Students

Background: The current college lifestyle create more opportunities for students to develop unhealthy behaviors, especially physical inactivity. Nudging could be an effective tool to improve physical activity behaviors by changing college settings. One-nudge-fits-all leads to ineffective nudges, so it is necessary to develop a reliable and valid instrument capable of measuring the “nudgeability” of physical activity nudges for college students, which is for a higher level of nudge efficacy. Method: Developing the College Physical Activity Nudges Susceptibility Scale (CPANSS) that integrated the nudge method with the Likert scale, which is the first attempt to measure the susceptibility to nudges directly by a scale. There are four steps for developing CPANSS, including Scale Dimensions, Item Generation, Exploratory Factor Analysis (n = 294), and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (n = 293) with appropriate procedures. Results: The five-factor 21-item CPANSS with good reliability and validity fitted the data reasonably well. Conclusion: The CPANSS was to provide a new tool for policymakers to design effective nudges in changing and promoting physical activity in college settings, and to provide a method for scholars to promote other healthy behaviors for different target groups.

How do different interventions impact stair climbing? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to analyze the effect of interventions to increase stair use.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

An online search was conducted in January 2021 in five databases (Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, MedLine/PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL). Experimental studies (randomized and non-randomized) conducted in adults, which provided stair use measures with pre- and post-intervention periods were included. A random-effect meta-analysis, as well as subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate the quantitative effect of interventions on stair use.

RESULTS

Overall, 34 studies were included in qualitative analyses, and 15 in the meta-analysis. Most of the studies were conducted in Europe and private settings (e.g., office buildings). Overall, interventions increased stair use in adults (odds ratio (OR) 1.48; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.38-1.58; I2 = 99.6%). Subgroup analyses showed that interventions increased stair use regardless of the continent and observer type (manual or electronic). However, different settings (shopping malls and office buildings), as well as studies (time of intervention) and intervention characteristics (sign size and location, message characters) were associated with increased stair use.

CONCLUSIONS

Different interventions can increase stair use in several continents and settings. Sign and message characteristics should be considered when designing interventions or policies to promote physical activity by increasing stair use.

Nudges used to promote physical activity and to reduce sedentary behaviour in the workplace: Results of a scoping review

Physical inactivity is one of the most important risk factors for non-communicable diseases. Workplace health promotion is therefore of growing interest to support an active day using nudges. The scoping review aims to (a) analyse how frequently nudges are applied in workplace health promotion to increase physical activity and/or reduce sedentary behaviour, and (b) characterise the nudges used. A systematic database search was conducted for the period 2009 to June 2020. According to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, studies promoting physical activity and/or reducing sedentary behaviour using nudges were included. Nudges were classified according to MINDSPACE and TIPPME. A study protocol was previously published. Of the 256 studies identified, 26 used nudges. Most studies were conducted in Europe (n = 12) and the USA (n = 8). N = 18 studies targeted physical activity and n = 8 studies targeted sedentary behaviour. In most studies promoting physical activity, prompts were given to climb stairs (n = 11). Interventions targeting sedentary behaviour were more diverse, using digital interventions or mixed approaches (n = 8). Although nudges can help increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour, there are still gaps in terms of their effective and efficient use. There is a lack of long-term studies that analyse habituation and behavioural changes beyond the intervention period. In addition, the potential of digital and mixed approaches is not yet fully exploited. Further studies from low- and middle-income countries with different climates and working conditions are needed to investigate the feasibility of approaches and advance the fight against physical inactivity.

Choice architecture interventions to change physical activity and sedentary behavior: a systematic review of effects on intention, behavior and health outcomes during and after intervention

BACKGROUND

Choice architecture interventions, which subtly change the environment in which individuals make decisions, can be used to promote behavior change. This systematic review aimed to summarize studies on micro-environmental choice architecture interventions that encouraged physical activity or discouraged sedentary behavior in adults, and to describe the effectiveness of those interventions on these behaviors - and on related intentions or health outcomes - in presence of the intervention and after removal of the intervention (i.e. post-intervention, regardless of the time elapsed).

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library for (quasi) experimental studies published up to December 2019 that evaluated the effect of choice architecture interventions on physical activity and sedentary behavior, as well as on intentions and health outcomes related to physical activity/sedentary behavior. Studies that combined choice architecture techniques with other behavior change techniques were excluded. All studies were screened for eligibility, relevant data was extracted and two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality using the QualSyst tool.

RESULTS

Of the 9609 records initially identified, 88 studies met our eligibility criteria. Most studies (n = 70) were of high methodologic quality. Eighty-six studies targeted physical activity, predominantly stair use, whereas two studies targeted sedentary behavior, and one targeted both behaviors. Intervention techniques identified were prompting (n = 53), message framing (n = 24), social comparison (n = 12), feedback (n = 8), default change (n = 1) and anchoring (n = 1). In presence of the intervention, 68% of the studies reported an effect of choice architecture on behavior, whereas after removal of the intervention only 47% of the studies reported a significant effect. For all choice architecture techniques identified, except for message framing, the majority of studies reported a significant effect on behavioral intentions or behavior in presence of the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that prompting can effectively encourage stair use in adults, especially in presence of a prompt. The effectiveness of the choice architecture techniques social influence, feedback, default change and anchoring cannot be assessed based on this review. More (controlled) studies are needed to assess the (sustained) effectiveness of choice architecture interventions on sedentary behavior and other types of physical activity than stair use.

Promoting Stair Climbing as an Exercise Routine among Healthy Older Adults Attending a Community-Based Physical Activity Program

Stair climbing provides a feasible opportunity for increasing physical activity (PA) in daily living. The purpose of this study was to examine the daily walking and stair-climbing steps among healthy older adults (age: 74.0 ± 4.9 years; Body Mass Index (BMI): 22.3 ± 2.5 kg/m²). Participants (34 females and 15 males) attended a weekly 6-month community-based PA program. During the entire program period, daily walking and stair-climbing steps were recorded using a pedometer (Omron, HJA-403C, Kyoto, Japan). Before and after the 6-month program, height, body weight and leg muscle strength were assessed. After the 6-month program, the mean walking and stair-climbing steps in both women and men increased significantly (p ≤ 0.01). Daily stair-climbing steps increased about 36 steps in women and 47 steps in men. At the end of 6 months, only male participants had significant correlation between the number of stair steps and leg muscle strength (r = 0.428, p = 0.037). This study reported that healthy older adults attending the community-based PA program had regular stair-climbing steps during daily living. Promoting stair climbing as an exercise routine was feasible to increase their walking and stair-climbing steps.

Strategies to improve the implementation of workplace-based policies or practices targeting tobacco, alcohol, diet, physical activity and obesity

BACKGROUND

Given the substantial period of time adults spend in their workplaces each day, these provide an opportune setting for interventions addressing modifiable behavioural risk factors for chronic disease. Previous reviews of trials of workplace-based interventions suggest they can be effective in modifying a range of risk factors including diet, physical activity, obesity, risky alcohol use and tobacco use. However, such interventions are often poorly implemented in workplaces, limiting their impact on employee health. Identifying strategies that are effective in improving the implementation of workplace-based interventions has the potential to improve their effects on health outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of strategies for improving the implementation of workplace-based policies or practices targeting diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco use and alcohol use.Secondary objectives were to assess the impact of such strategies on employee health behaviours, including dietary intake, physical activity, weight status, and alcohol and tobacco use; evaluate their cost-effectiveness; and identify any unintended adverse effects of implementation strategies on workplaces or workplace staff.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases on 31 August 2017: CENTRAL; MEDLINE; MEDLINE In Process; the Campbell Library; PsycINFO; Education Resource Information Center (ERIC); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); and Scopus. We also handsearched all publications between August 2012 and September 2017 in two speciality journals: Implementation Science and Journal of Translational Behavioral Medicine. We conducted searches up to September 2017 in Dissertations and Theses, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the US National Institutes of Health Registry. We screened the reference lists of included trials and contacted authors to identify other potentially relevant trials. We also consulted experts in the field to identify other relevant research.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Implementation strategies were defined as strategies specifically employed to improve the implementation of health interventions into routine practice within specific settings. We included any trial with a parallel control group (randomised or non-randomised) and conducted at any scale that compared strategies to support implementation of workplace policies or practices targeting diet, physical activity, obesity, risky alcohol use or tobacco use versus no intervention (i.e. wait-list, usual practice or minimal support control) or another implementation strategy. Implementation strategies could include those identified by the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy such as quality improvement initiatives and education and training, as well as other strategies. Implementation interventions could target policies or practices directly instituted in the workplace environment, as well as workplace-instituted efforts encouraging the use of external health promotion services (e.g. gym membership subsidies).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors working in pairs independently performed citation screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment, resolving disagreements via consensus or a third reviewer. We narratively synthesised findings for all included trials by first describing trial characteristics, participants, interventions and outcomes. We then described the effect size of the outcome measure for policy or practice implementation. We performed meta-analysis of implementation outcomes for trials of comparable design and outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six trials, four of which took place in the USA. Four trials employed randomised controlled trial (RCT) designs. Trials were conducted in workplaces from the manufacturing, industrial and services-based sectors. The sample sizes of workplaces ranged from 12 to 114. Workplace policies and practices targeted included: healthy catering policies; point-of-purchase nutrition labelling; environmental supports for healthy eating and physical activity; tobacco control policies; weight management programmes; and adherence to guidelines for staff health promotion. All implementation interventions utilised multiple implementation strategies, the most common of which were educational meetings, tailored interventions and local consensus processes. Four trials compared an implementation strategy intervention with a no intervention control, one trial compared different implementation interventions, and one three-arm trial compared two implementation strategies with each other and a control. Four trials reported a single implementation outcome, whilst the other two reported multiple outcomes. Investigators assessed outcomes using surveys, audits and environmental observations. We judged most trials to be at high risk of performance and detection bias and at unclear risk of reporting and attrition bias.Of the five trials comparing implementation strategies with a no intervention control, pooled analysis was possible for three RCTs reporting continuous score-based measures of implementation outcomes. The meta-analysis found no difference in standardised effects (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.30; 164 participants; 3 studies; low certainty evidence), suggesting no benefit of implementation support in improving policy or practice implementation, relative to control. Findings for other continuous or dichotomous implementation outcomes reported across these five trials were mixed. For the two non-randomised trials examining comparative effectiveness, both reported improvements in implementation, favouring the more intensive implementation group (very low certainty evidence). Three trials examined the impact of implementation strategies on employee health behaviours, reporting mixed effects for diet and weight status (very low certainty evidence) and no effect for physical activity (very low certainty evidence) or tobacco use (low certainty evidence). One trial reported an increase in absolute workplace costs for health promotion in the implementation group (low certainty evidence). None of the included trials assessed adverse consequences. Limitations of the review included the small number of trials identified and the lack of consistent terminology applied in the implementation science field, which may have resulted in us overlooking potentially relevant trials in the search.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence regarding the effectiveness of implementation strategies for improving implementation of health-promoting policies and practices in the workplace setting is sparse and inconsistent. Low certainty evidence suggests that such strategies may make little or no difference on measures of implementation fidelity or different employee health behaviour outcomes. It is also unclear if such strategies are cost-effective or have potential unintended adverse consequences. The limited number of trials identified suggests implementation research in the workplace setting is in its infancy, warranting further research to guide evidence translation in this setting.