Nathalie M Berninger1, Guy Plasqui2, Rik Crutzen3, Robert A C Ruiter1, Gerjo Kok1, Gill A Ten Hoor4. 1. Department of Work and Social Psychology, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Human Biology and Movement Sciences, Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Health Promotion, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Work and Social Psychology, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. gill.tenhoor@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sedentary behaviour (SB) affects cardiometabolic health and quality of life (QoL). We examine the effects of UPcomplish, a 12-week data-driven intervention, on SB, QoL and psychosocial determinants among office workers. METHODS: Participants were recruited via judgement sampling. Five groups starting with time-lags of 7 weeks (n = 142, 96 females) received 14 feedback messages (FBMs) which were tailored to SB patterns, goals and hurdles. Participants received questionnaires at the beginning, middle and end of the intervention and wore an accelerometer measuring SB, operationalized as proportions (compositional data approach, CoDA) and summed squared sitting bouts (SSSB). We used linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts for weeks (between-subjects) and individuals (within-subjects). RESULTS: UPcomplish did not reduce SB. Within-subjects compared to baseline, FBM #3 (βCoDA = 0.24, p < .001, 95% CI [0.15, 0.33]; βSSSB = 20.83, p < .001, 95% CI [13.90, 27.28]) and #4 (βCoDA = 0.20, p < .001, 95% CI [0.11, 0.29]; βSSSB = 24.80, p < .001, 95% CI [15.84, 33.76]) increased SB. QoL was unaffected. Perceived susceptibility was lower after FBMs #6 to #8 (βbetween = - 0.66, p = .04, 95% CI [- 1.03, - 0.30]; βwithin = - 0.75, p = .02, 95% CI [- 1.18, - 0.32]). Within-subjects, intentions to sit less were higher after FBMs #1 to #5 (1.14, p = .02, 95% CI [0.61, 1.66]). Improvements in determinants and in SB were not associated, nor were improvements in SB and in QoL. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to VitaBit only, UPcomplish was not beneficial. Environmental restructuring might be superior, but detailed analyses of moderators of effectiveness are needed.
BACKGROUND: Sedentary behaviour (SB) affects cardiometabolic health and quality of life (QoL). We examine the effects of UPcomplish, a 12-week data-driven intervention, on SB, QoL and psychosocial determinants among office workers. METHODS: Participants were recruited via judgement sampling. Five groups starting with time-lags of 7 weeks (n = 142, 96 females) received 14 feedback messages (FBMs) which were tailored to SB patterns, goals and hurdles. Participants received questionnaires at the beginning, middle and end of the intervention and wore an accelerometer measuring SB, operationalized as proportions (compositional data approach, CoDA) and summed squared sitting bouts (SSSB). We used linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts for weeks (between-subjects) and individuals (within-subjects). RESULTS: UPcomplish did not reduce SB. Within-subjects compared to baseline, FBM #3 (βCoDA = 0.24, p < .001, 95% CI [0.15, 0.33]; βSSSB = 20.83, p < .001, 95% CI [13.90, 27.28]) and #4 (βCoDA = 0.20, p < .001, 95% CI [0.11, 0.29]; βSSSB = 24.80, p < .001, 95% CI [15.84, 33.76]) increased SB. QoL was unaffected. Perceived susceptibility was lower after FBMs #6 to #8 (βbetween = - 0.66, p = .04, 95% CI [- 1.03, - 0.30]; βwithin = - 0.75, p = .02, 95% CI [- 1.18, - 0.32]). Within-subjects, intentions to sit less were higher after FBMs #1 to #5 (1.14, p = .02, 95% CI [0.61, 1.66]). Improvements in determinants and in SB were not associated, nor were improvements in SB and in QoL. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to VitaBit only, UPcomplish was not beneficial. Environmental restructuring might be superior, but detailed analyses of moderators of effectiveness are needed.
Authors: Genevieve N Healy; David W Dunstan; Jo Salmon; Ester Cerin; Jonathan E Shaw; Paul Z Zimmet; Neville Owen Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-02-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Sophie Carter; Yvonne Hartman; Sophie Holder; Dick H Thijssen; Nicola D Hopkins Journal: Exerc Sport Sci Rev Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 6.230
Authors: Andrea Bankoski; Tamara B Harris; James J McClain; Robert J Brychta; Paolo Caserotti; Kong Y Chen; David Berrigan; Richard P Troiano; Annemarie Koster Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Bernard M F M Duvivier; Nicolaas C Schaper; Matthijs K C Hesselink; Linh van Kan; Nathalie Stienen; Bjorn Winkens; Annemarie Koster; Hans H C M Savelberg Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2016-11-30 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Ingrid J M Hendriksen; Claire M Bernaards; Wouter M P Steijn; Vincent H Hildebrandt Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 2.162