Marsha L Brierley1, Angel M Chater1, Lindsey R Smith1, Daniel P Bailey2. 1. Institute for Sport and Physical Activity Research, School of Sport Science and Physical Activity, University of Bedfordshire, Polhill Avenue, Bedford, MK41 9EA, UK. 2. Institute for Sport and Physical Activity Research, School of Sport Science and Physical Activity, University of Bedfordshire, Polhill Avenue, Bedford, MK41 9EA, UK. daniel.bailey@beds.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sedentary behaviour is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this work were to systematically review the effects of workplace sedentary behaviour reduction interventions on cardiometabolic risk markers (primary aim) and identify the active behaviour change techniques (BCTs) by which these interventions work (secondary aim). METHODS: A systematic search of 11 databases for articles published up to 12 April 2019 yielded a total of 4255 unique titles, with 29 articles being identified for inclusion. Interventions were rated as very promising, quite promising or non-promising based on their effects on cardiometabolic risk markers compared with baseline and/or a comparison arm. Interventions were coded for BCTs used. To assess the relative effectiveness of BCTs, a promise ratio was calculated as the frequency of a BCT appearing in all promising interventions divided by its frequency of appearance in all non-promising interventions. RESULTS: A narrative synthesis included 29 published studies of varying study design and comprised of 30 interventions. Risk of bias was high for blinding and allocation concealment, moderate for random sequence generation, and low for outcome assessment. Nine interventions were very promising, 11 were quite promising, 10 were non-promising, and 10 active control groups did not experience cardiometabolic changes. Significant sedentary behaviour reductions were present in all but five studies where cardiometabolic risk markers improved. The BCTs of social comparison, problem solving, demonstration of the behaviour, goal setting (behaviour), behaviour substitution, and habit reversal, demonstrated moderate to high promise ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Workplace interventions show promise for improving cardiometabolic risk markers. The BCTs with the greatest promise of cardiometabolic risk marker improvements included social comparison, those related to individual habits, and behaviour goals. REGISTRATION: This systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017072427).
BACKGROUND: Sedentary behaviour is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this work were to systematically review the effects of workplace sedentary behaviour reduction interventions on cardiometabolic risk markers (primary aim) and identify the active behaviour change techniques (BCTs) by which these interventions work (secondary aim). METHODS: A systematic search of 11 databases for articles published up to 12 April 2019 yielded a total of 4255 unique titles, with 29 articles being identified for inclusion. Interventions were rated as very promising, quite promising or non-promising based on their effects on cardiometabolic risk markers compared with baseline and/or a comparison arm. Interventions were coded for BCTs used. To assess the relative effectiveness of BCTs, a promise ratio was calculated as the frequency of a BCT appearing in all promising interventions divided by its frequency of appearance in all non-promising interventions. RESULTS: A narrative synthesis included 29 published studies of varying study design and comprised of 30 interventions. Risk of bias was high for blinding and allocation concealment, moderate for random sequence generation, and low for outcome assessment. Nine interventions were very promising, 11 were quite promising, 10 were non-promising, and 10 active control groups did not experience cardiometabolic changes. Significant sedentary behaviour reductions were present in all but five studies where cardiometabolic risk markers improved. The BCTs of social comparison, problem solving, demonstration of the behaviour, goal setting (behaviour), behaviour substitution, and habit reversal, demonstrated moderate to high promise ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Workplace interventions show promise for improving cardiometabolic risk markers. The BCTs with the greatest promise of cardiometabolic risk marker improvements included social comparison, those related to individual habits, and behaviour goals. REGISTRATION: This systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017072427).
Authors: Lisanne M Verweij; Karin I Proper; Andre N H Weel; Carel T J Hulshof; Willem van Mechelen Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Jesús Del Pozo-Cruz; Antonio García-Hermoso; Rosa M Alfonso-Rosa; Francisco Alvarez-Barbosa; Neville Owen; Sebastien Chastin; Borja Del Pozo-Cruz Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Tammy C Hoffmann; Andrew D Oxman; John Pa Ioannidis; David Moher; Toby J Lasserson; David I Tovey; Ken Stein; Katy Sutcliffe; Philippe Ravaud; Douglas G Altman; Rafael Perera; Paul Glasziou Journal: BMJ Date: 2017-07-20
Authors: Carla F J Nooijen; Lena V Kallings; Victoria Blom; Örjan Ekblom; Yvonne Forsell; Maria M Ekblom Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Alicia A Thorp; Genevieve N Healy; Elisabeth Winkler; Bronwyn K Clark; Paul A Gardiner; Neville Owen; David W Dunstan Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2012-10-26 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Britni R Belcher; Dong-Woo Kang; Alexandra G Yunker; Christina M Dieli-Conwright Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2022-07-13 Impact factor: 5.945
Authors: Krista S Leonard; Junia N de Brito; Miranda L Larouche; Sarah A Rydell; Nathan R Mitchell; Mark A Pereira; Matthew P Buman Journal: Transl J Am Coll Sports Med Date: 2022-09-15
Authors: Jennifer D James; Wendy Hardeman; Mark Goodall; Helen Eborall; Victoria S Sprung; Laura J Bonnett; John P H Wilding Journal: Physiotherapy Date: 2021-10-19 Impact factor: 3.704
Authors: Bradley MacDonald; Ann-Marie Gibson; Xanne Janssen; Alison Kirk Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Anna Valeria Dieterich; Andre Matthias Müller; Katika Akksilp; Sarin K C; Saudamini Vishwanath Dabak; Thomas Rouyard Journal: BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med Date: 2020-12-04
Authors: Daniel P Bailey; Charlotte L Edwardson; Yannis Pappas; Feng Dong; David J Hewson; Stuart J H Biddle; Marsha L Brierley; Angel M Chater Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2021-03-19
Authors: Sheri J Hartman; Lindsay W Dillon; Andrea Z LaCroix; Loki Natarajan; Dorothy D Sears; Neville Owen; David W Dunstan; James F Sallis; Simon Schenk; Matthew Allison; Michelle Takemoto; Alexandra M Herweck; Bao Nguyen; Dori E Rosenberg Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2021-05-13
Authors: Marsha L Brierley; Lindsey R Smith; Daniel P Bailey; Sofie A Every; Taylor A Staines; Angel M Chater Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Iris M de Hoogh; Barbara L Winters; Kristin M Nieman; Sabina Bijlsma; Tanja Krone; Tim J van den Broek; Barbara D Anderson; Martien P M Caspers; Joshua C Anthony; Suzan Wopereis Journal: Nutrients Date: 2021-05-22 Impact factor: 5.717