Abstract
Background Sedentary behaviour has been the focus of considerable clinical, policy and research interest due to its detrimental effects on health and wellbeing. This systematic review aims to (1) develop a more precise description of different categories of interventions that aim to reduce sedentary time in adults by identifying specific components that form an intervention; (2) explore the effect of different categories of interventions in reducing time spent sedentary in adults.
Methods Ten electronic databases, websites of relevant organisations (e.g. the Sedentary Behaviour Research Network), and relevant reviews were searched. Inclusion criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster and randomised cross-over trials, in the adult population (clinical and non-clinical). Any study including a measure of sedentary behaviour was included even if reducing sedentary behaviour was not the primary aim. Exclusion criteria: Interventions delivered in schools, colleges, or workplaces; studies investigating the immediate effects of breaking up sitting time as part of a supervised (usually laboratory-based) intervention. Two review authors conducted data extraction and quality assessment (GRADE approach).
Results Searches identified 39,223 records, of which 85 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Interventions shown to significantly reduce time spent sedentary were those which incorporated the provision of information, education, or support (advice/recommendations), in conjunction with either counselling (mean difference: -52.24 minutes/day; 95% CI: -85.37 to -19.10) or a form of structured/prescribed physical activity (standardised mean difference: -0.15; 95% CI: -0.23 to -0.07). However, this positive effect was not maintained at follow-up. No interventions were shown to break up prolonged sitting.
Conclusions This review presents a novel way of categorising interventions according to the types of components they comprised. There is evidence that interventions might be effective in reducing time spent sedentary immediately post-intervention. There were limited studies measuring sustained behaviour change.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=83751
Funding Statement
This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme, (Development and evaluation of strategies to reduce sedentary behaviour in patients after stroke and improve outcomes, RP-PG-0615-20019). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was not required because this review retrieved and synthesised data from already published studies.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated; all data analysed were obtained from the published articles included in the review.
