Effects of Vibrotactile Feedback on Sedentary Behaviors in Adults: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Effectiveness and Components of Health Behavior Interventions on Increasing Physical Activity Among Healthy Young and Middle-Aged Adults: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analyses

Physical inactivity contributes to various health risks; however, approximately one-third of the global population remains insufficiently active. Many researchers have attempted to increase physical activity levels; however, the effectiveness and the specific components of these interventions remain unclear. This systematic review with meta-analyses utilized a behavior change technique taxonomy to identify and extract effective intervention components, aiming to develop more efficient programs to promote physical activity. We searched the PubMed and Ichu-shi Web databases for studies targeting healthy young and middle-aged adults with data on physical activity changes and extracted the intervention components. A random-effects model was used for the primary meta-analysis, and a meta-regression was conducted for the selected outcomes. Overall, 116 studies were included, with 102 used for the primary analysis. The interventions showed a small effect on overall physical activity promotion. Subsequent meta-regressions identified 1.5 Review behavior goal(s) as a significant positive intervention component, as well as four and three potential positive and negative components, respectively. This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated the effectiveness of physical activity interventions and highlighted effective and negative components. These findings may inform the design of future programs aimed at promoting physical activity.

Effects of using wearable devices on reducing sedentary time and prolonged sitting in healthy adults: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of different wearable intervention strategies in reducing sedentary time (ST) and prolonged sitting (PS) on healthy adults.

DESIGN

A network meta-analysis (NMA).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, ProQuest, Opengrey, Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to 1 June 2024.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effect of wearable device interventions on ST and PS among healthy adults were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers used standardised methods to search, screen and code included studies. Bias risks were assessed using Cochrane tools (Risk of Bias 2.0). Data were analysed using a frequentist framework NMA to directly and indirectly compare the effects of the five different intervention strategies (comparators). The results were reported as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CI and surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank the best interventions. The five comparators were as follows: (1) wearable-only intervention (only using wearable devices for self-monitoring); (2) wearable combined with online intervention (ie, online coaching and social media support); (3) wearable combined with offline intervention (ie, face-to-face seminars and courses); (4) comparison group (ie, traditional, non-wearable interventions); (5) control group (ie, maintaining daily routine, waitlist).

RESULTS

12 RCTs with a total of 2957 participants were included. Results of NMA showed that the 'wearable+online' has significantly better effects in reducing ST compared with control group, comparison group and 'wearable only', with moderate to large effect sizes (SMD=0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.27; SMD=0.87, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.53; SMD=0.78, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42, respectively). However, no significant differences were identified between the groups in reducing PS. The SUCRA values were ranked as wearable+online (98.1%), wearable+offline (64.4%,), 'wearable only' (40.5%), comparison group (25.9%) and control group (21.1%) for ST reduction. Similar rankings were observed for PS reduction, with probabilities of 69.9%, 61.1%, 59.7%, 37.1% and 22.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Wearable+online is the best intervention strategy for reducing ST in healthy adults. Additionally, none of the wearable-based interventions effectively reduced PS in healthy adults, but as there is little research on PS, it should receive more attention in the future. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021290017.

Efficacy, characteristics, behavioural models and behaviour change strategies, of non-workplace interventions specifically targeting sedentary behaviour; a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials in healthy ambulatory adults

BACKGROUND

Sedentary 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.

METHODS

We 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.

RESULTS

Of 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Although 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 REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020172457 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020172457.

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.