Cardiometabolic comorbidities are highly prevalent in clinical populations, and have been associated (partly) with their sedentary lifestyle. Although lifestyle interventions targeting sedentary behaviour (SB) have been studied extensively in the general population, the effect of such strategies in clinical populations is not yet clear. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effect of different lifestyle interventions on SB and cardiometabolic health in clinical populations. Randomised controlled trials were collected from five bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated a lifestyle intervention to reduce objectively measured SB, in comparison with a control intervention among persons with a clinical condition. Data were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. In total, 7094 studies were identified. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were categorised in five population groups: overweight/obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular, neurological/cognitive and musculoskeletal diseases. Participants reduced their SB by 64 min/day (95%CI: [−91, −38] min/day; <i>p</i> < 0.001), with larger within-group differences of multicomponent behavioural interventions including motivational counselling, self-monitoring, social facilitation and technologies (−89 min/day; 95%CI: [−132, −46] min/day; <i>p</i> < 0.001). Blood glycated haemoglobin concentration (−0.17%; 95% CI: [−0.30, −0.04]%; <i>p</i> = 0.01), fat percentage (−0.66%; 95% CI: [−1.26, −0.06]%, <i>p</i> = 0.03) and waist circumference (−1.52 cm; 95%CI: [−2.84, −0.21] cm; <i>p</i> = 0.02) were significantly reduced in the intervention groups compared to control groups. Behavioural lifestyle interventions reduce SB among clinical populations and improve cardiometabolic risk markers such as waist circumference, fat percentage, and glycaemic control. Sedentary behaviour, Cardiometabolic health, Clinical populations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
CONTEXT/PURPOSE: Observational and acute laboratory intervention research has shown that excessive sedentary time is associated adversely with cardiometabolic biomarkers. This systematic review with meta-analyses synthesises results from free living interventions targeting reductions in sedentary behaviour alone or combined with increases in physical activity.
METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched up to August 2019 for sedentary behaviour interventions in adults lasting for ≥7 days publishing cardiometabolic biomarker outcomes covering body anthropometry, blood pressure, glucose and lipid metabolism, and inflammation (54 studies). The pooled effectiveness of intervention net of control on 15 biomarker outcomes was evaluated using random effects meta-analyses in the studies with control groups not providing other relevant interventions (33 studies; 6-25 interventions analysed).
RESULTS: Interventions between 2 weeks and <6 months in non-clinical populations from North America, Europe and Australia comprised much of the evidence base. Pooled effects revealed small, significant (p<0.05) beneficial effects on weight (≈ -0.6 kg), waist circumference (≈ -0.7 cm), percentage body fat (≈ -0.3 %), systolic blood pressure (≈ -1.1 mm Hg), insulin (≈ -1.4 pM) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (≈ 0.04 mM). Pooled effects on the other biomarkers (p>0.05) were also small, and beneficial in direction except for fat-free mass (≈ 0.0 kg). Heterogeneity ranged widely (I2=0.0-72.9).
CONCLUSIONS: Our review of interventions targeting sedentary behaviour reductions alone, or combined with increases in physical activity, found evidence of effectiveness for improving some cardiometabolic risk biomarkers to a small degree. There was insufficient evidence to evaluate inflammation or vascular function. Key limitations to the underlying evidence base include a paucity of high-quality studies, interventions lasting for ≥12 months, sensitive biomarkers and clinical study populations (eg, type 2 diabetes).
PROSPERO TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016041742.
AIM: This systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigated the effectiveness of interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour amongst people with overweight or obesity. Secondarily, it aimed to investigate the effectiveness of these interventions on body mass index (BMI), time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
METHODS: A search of six databases (CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, PEDro, CINAHL and PsycINFO) was conducted from inception to July 2018. RCTs in which sedentary behaviour was measured by accelerometry or inclinometry, with participants of any age with overweight or obesity were included. Subgroup analyses were undertaken comparing studies that included adults versus children and studies with an active component (e.g., treadmill desk, physically active breaks) versus no active component to their intervention.
RESULTS: Nine studies (n=1859) were included. Compared to the control group, the interventions significantly reduced time spent in sedentary behaviour (standardised mean difference [95% confidence interval] -0.33 [-0.59 to -0.08] overall; -0.53 [-0.95 to -0.11] in adults). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that only interventions that included active components reduced time spent in sedentary behaviour (-0.54 [-0.88 to -0.20]) and increased time spent in MVPA (1.29 [0.02 to 2.56]). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that interventions only reduced BMI in studies of children (-0.09 [-0.18 to -0.00]) and in those with no active component (-0.09 [-0.18 to -0.01]). There were insufficient data to investigate the effectiveness of these interventions on HRQoL.
CONCLUSIONS: This novel systematic review and meta-analyses suggests interventions aiming to effectively reduce objectively-measured sedentary behaviour need to specifically include an active component.
Background: It is now well-established that sedentarity has a negative impact on the physiological functioning and health of humans, whereas very little is known about the psychological repercussions, especially in cognitive functioning. Yet, studying the cognitive effects of the sedentary lifestyle is particularly relevant in the short term for productivity and in the long term for cognitive health (accelerated aging). This systematic review therefore aims to make an inventory of the potential cognitive effects of sedentarity at the workplace. Methods: Pubmed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for English-language peer-reviewed articles published between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2017 to identify studies including sedentary behavior and objective measures from cognitive domains (cognitive inhibition, cognitive flexibility, working memory, etc.). To carry out this systematic review, the 3 keywords "Sedentary" and "Cognition" and "Work" (and their derivatives) had to appear in the title or in the summary of the paper. Results: Of the 13 papers that met the inclusion criteria, 9 were short-term interventions, 3 medium-term interventions, and 1 long-term intervention. Nine of them reported non-significant results. Two studies study reported deterioration in cognitive performance. Two reported an improvement in performance in cognitive tasks with one study with overweight adults and the only one study with a long-term intervention. However, these studies intend to reduce sedentary behavior, but do not allow answering the question of the potential cognitive effects of the sedentary lifestyle. Conclusion: These data suggest that sedentary behavior is not associated with changes in cognitive performance in interventions that intend to reduce sedentary behavior. Then, and given the trend toward increased time in sedentary behavior, long-term prospective studies of high methodological quality are recommended to clarify the relationships between sedentary behavior and the cognitive functioning. Our systematic review identifies also the need for retrospective, longitudinal, or epidemiologic studies. It also recognizes the need to standardize methodology for collecting, defining, and reporting sedentary behavior and the need to standardize the cognitive tests used. The relationship between sedentary behavior and cognitive functioning remaining uncertain, further studies are warranted for which 8 recommendations are proposed.
BACKGROUND: A large number of people are employed in sedentary occupations. Physical inactivity and excessive sitting at workplaces have been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and all-cause mortality.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions to reduce sitting at work compared to no intervention or alternative interventions.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, OSH UPDATE, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to 9 August 2017. We also screened reference lists of articles and contacted authors to find more studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over RCTs, cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs), and quasi-RCTs of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or measured using devices such as an accelerometer-inclinometer and duration and number of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more. We considered energy expenditure, total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), time spent standing at work, work productivity and adverse events as secondary outcomes.
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 authors for additional data where required.
MAIN RESULTS: We found 34 studies - including two cross-over RCTs, 17 RCTs, seven cluster-RCTs, and eight controlled before-and-after studies - with a total of 3,397 participants, all from high-income countries. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (16 studies), workplace policy changes (four studies), information and counselling (11 studies), and multi-component interventions (four studies). One study included both physical workplace changes and information and counselling components. We did not find any studies that specifically investigated the effects of standing meetings or walking meetings on sitting time.Physical workplace changesInterventions using sit-stand desks, either alone or in combination with information and counselling, reduced sitting time at work on average by 100 minutes per workday at short-term follow-up (up to three months) compared to sit-desks (95% confidence interval (CI) -116 to -84, 10 studies, low-quality evidence). The pooled effect of two studies showed sit-stand desks reduced sitting time at medium-term follow-up (3 to 12 months) by an average of 57 minutes per day (95% CI -99 to -15) compared to sit-desks. Total sitting time (including sitting at and outside work) also decreased with sit-stand desks compared to sit-desks (mean difference (MD) -82 minutes/day, 95% CI -124 to -39, two studies) as did the duration of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -53 minutes/day, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies, very low-quality evidence).We found no significant difference between the effects of standing desks and sit-stand desks on reducing sitting at work. Active workstations, such as treadmill desks or cycling desks, had unclear or inconsistent effects on sitting time.Workplace policy changesWe found no significant effects for implementing walking strategies on workplace sitting time at short-term (MD -15 minutes per day, 95% CI -50 to 19, low-quality evidence, one study) and medium-term (MD -17 minutes/day, 95% CI -61 to 28, one study) follow-up. Short breaks (one to two minutes every half hour) reduced time spent sitting at work on average by 40 minutes per day (95% CI -66 to -15, one study, low-quality evidence) compared to long breaks (two 15-minute breaks per workday) at short-term follow-up.Information and counsellingProviding information, feedback, counselling, or all of these resulted in no significant change in time spent sitting at work at short-term follow-up (MD -19 minutes per day, 95% CI -57 to 19, two studies, low-quality evidence). However, the reduction was significant at medium-term follow-up (MD -28 minutes per day, 95% CI -51 to -5, two studies, low-quality evidence).Computer prompts combined with information resulted in no significant change in sitting time at work at short-term follow-up (MD -14 minutes per day, 95% CI -39 to 10, three studies, low-quality evidence), but at medium-term follow-up they produced a significant reduction (MD -55 minutes per day, 95% CI -96 to -14, one study). Furthermore, computer prompting resulted in a significant decrease in the average number (MD -1.1, 95% CI -1.9 to -0.3, one study) and duration (MD -74 minutes per day, 95% CI -124 to -24, one study) of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more.Computer prompts with instruction to stand reduced sitting at work on average by 14 minutes per day (95% CI 10 to 19, one study) more than computer prompts with instruction to walk at least 100 steps at short-term follow-up.We found no significant reduction in workplace sitting time at medium-term follow-up following mindfulness training (MD -23 minutes per day, 95% CI -63 to 17, one study, low-quality evidence). Similarly a single study reported no change in sitting time at work following provision of highly personalised or contextualised information and less personalised or contextualised information. One study found no significant effects of activity trackers on sitting time at work.Multi-component interventions Combining multiple interventions had significant but heterogeneous effects on sitting time at work (573 participants, three studies, very low-quality evidence) and on time spent in prolonged sitting bouts (two studies, very low-quality evidence) at short-term follow-up.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present there is low-quality evidence that the use of sit-stand desks reduce workplace sitting at short-term and medium-term follow-ups. However, there is no evidence on their effects on sitting over longer follow-up periods. Effects of other types of interventions, including workplace policy changes, provision of information and counselling, and multi-component interventions, are mostly inconsistent. The quality of evidence is low to very low for most interventions, mainly because of limitations in study protocols and small sample sizes. There is a need for larger cluster-RCTs with longer-term follow-ups to determine the effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce sitting time at work.
BACKGROUND: Sit-stand workstations are proposed solutions to reduce sedentary time at work. Numerous companies are using them to mitigate health concerns such as musculoskeletal discomfort.
OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on sit-stand workstations and low back discomfort.
METHOD: We conducted a meta-analysis on literature published before November 17, 2016 that addressed the relationship between sit-stand workstations and musculoskeletal discomfort, focusing on the low back.
RESULTS: Twelve articles were identified and eight that presented results in means (SD) were included. Among a pain-free population, the standardized mean difference (SMD) was -0.230 for low back discomfort with use of sit-stand workstations. When applying the SMD to studies using the 10-point pain scale, the effect estimates ranged between -0.30 to -0.51.
CONCLUSION: Sit-stand workstations may reduce low back pain among workers. Further research is needed to help quantify dosage parameters and other health outcomes. Practitioner Summary: In a sedentary population, changing posture may reduce the chance of developing low back pain. The literature lacks studies on specific populations such as those who have pre-existing low back pain and also does not adequately address the dosage of sit-stand time required to help reduce pain.
While prolonged standing has shown to be detrimentally associated with musculoskeletal symptoms, exposure limits and underlying mechanisms are not well understood. We systematically reviewed evidence from laboratory studies on musculoskeletal symptom development during prolonged (≥20min) uninterrupted standing, quantified acute dose-response associations and described underlying mechanisms. Peer-reviewed articles were systematically searched for. Data from included articles were tabulated, and dose-response associations were statistically pooled. A linear interpolation of pooled dose-response associations was performed to estimate the duration of prolonged standing associated with musculoskeletal symptoms with a clinically relevant intensity of ≥9 (out of 100). We included 26 articles (from 25 studies with 591 participants), of which the majority examined associations of prolonged standing with low back and lower extremity symptoms. Evidence on other (e.g., upper limb) symptoms was limited and inconsistent. Pooled dose-response associations showed that clinically relevant levels of low back symptoms were reached after 71min of prolonged standing, with this shortened to 42min in those considered pain developers. Regarding standing-related low back symptoms, consistent evidence was found for postural mechanisms (i.e., trunk flexion and lumbar curvature), but not for mechanisms of muscle fatigue and/or variation in movement. Blood pooling was the most consistently reported mechanism for standing-related lower extremity symptoms. Evidence suggests a detrimental association of prolonged standing with low back and lower extremity symptoms. To avoid musculoskeletal symptoms (without having a-priori knowledge on whether someone will develop symptoms or not), dose-response evidence from this study suggests a recommendation to refrain from standing for prolonged periods >40min. Interventions should also focus on underlying pain mechanisms.
PURPOSE: This systematic review aims to explain the heterogeneity in results of interventions to promote physical activity and healthy eating for overweight and obese adults, by exploring the differential effects of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and other intervention characteristics. METHODS: The inclusion criteria specified RCTs with ≥ 12 weeks' duration, from January 2007 to October 2014, for adults (mean age ≥ 40 years, mean BMI ≥ 30). Primary outcomes were measures of healthy diet or physical activity. Two reviewers rated study quality, coded the BCTs, and collected outcome results at short (≤6 months) and long term (≥12 months). Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were used to estimate effect sizes (ES), heterogeneity indices (I²) and regression coefficients. RESULTS: We included 48 studies containing a total of 82 outcome reports. The 32 long term reports had an overall ES = 0.24 with 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.15 to 0.33 and I² = 59.4%. The 50 short term reports had an ES = 0.37 with 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.48, and I² = 71.3%. The number of BCTs unique to the intervention group, and the BCTs goal setting and self-monitoring of behaviour predicted the effect at short and long term. The total number of BCTs in both intervention arms and using the BCTs goal setting of outcome, feedback on outcome of behaviour, implementing graded tasks, and adding objects to the environment, e.g. using a step counter, significantly predicted the effect at long term. Setting a goal for change; and the presence of reporting bias independently explained 58.8% of inter-study variation at short term. Autonomy supportive and person-centred methods as in Motivational Interviewing, the BCTs goal setting of behaviour, and receiving feedback on the outcome of behaviour, explained all of the between study variations in effects at long term. CONCLUSION: There are similarities, but also differences in effective BCTs promoting change in healthy eating and physical activity and BCTs supporting maintenance of change. The results support the use of goal setting and self-monitoring of behaviour when counselling overweight and obese adults. Several other BCTs as well as the use of a person-centred and autonomy supportive counselling approach seem important in order to maintain behaviour over time. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42015020624
BACKGROUND: Recently developed active workstation could become a potential means for worksite physical activity and wellness promotion. The aim of this review was to quantitatively examine the effectiveness of active workstation in energy expenditure and job performance.
METHODS: The literature search was conducted in 6 databases (PubMed, SPORTDiscuss, Web of Science, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, and Scopuse) for articles published up to February 2014, from which a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted.
RESULTS: The cumulative analysis for EE showed there was significant increase in EE using active workstation (mean effect size [MES]: 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22 to 1.72, p<.0001). Results from job performance indicated two findings: (a) active workstation did not affect selective attention, processing speed, speech quality, reading comprehension, interpretation and accuracy of transcription, and (b) it could decrease the efficiency of typing speed (MES: -0.55; CI: -0.88 to -0.21, p<.001), mouse clicking (MES: -1.10; CI: -1.29 to -0.92, p<.001).
CONCLUSION: Active workstation could significantly increase daily PA and be potentially useful in reducing workplace sedentariness. Although some parts of job performance were significantly lower, others were not. As a result there was little effect on real-life work productivity if we made a good arrangement of job tasks.
Cardiometabolic comorbidities are highly prevalent in clinical populations, and have been associated (partly) with their sedentary lifestyle. Although lifestyle interventions targeting sedentary behaviour (SB) have been studied extensively in the general population, the effect of such strategies in clinical populations is not yet clear. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effect of different lifestyle interventions on SB and cardiometabolic health in clinical populations. Randomised controlled trials were collected from five bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated a lifestyle intervention to reduce objectively measured SB, in comparison with a control intervention among persons with a clinical condition. Data were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. In total, 7094 studies were identified. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were categorised in five population groups: overweight/obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular, neurological/cognitive and musculoskeletal diseases. Participants reduced their SB by 64 min/day (95%CI: [−91, −38] min/day; p < 0.001), with larger within-group differences of multicomponent behavioural interventions including motivational counselling, self-monitoring, social facilitation and technologies (−89 min/day; 95%CI: [−132, −46] min/day; p < 0.001). Blood glycated haemoglobin concentration (−0.17%; 95% CI.: [−0.30, −0.04]%; p = 0.01), fat percentage (−0.66%; 95% CI.: [−1.26, −0.06]%, p = 0.03) and waist circumference (−1.52 cm; 95%CI: [−2.84, −0.21] cm; p = 0.02) were significantly reduced in the intervention groups compared to control groups. Behavioural lifestyle interventions reduce SB among clinical populations and improve cardiometabolic risk markers such as waist circumference, fat percentage, and glycaemic control. Sedentary behaviour, Cardiometabolic health, Clinical populations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
