The Regulate your Sitting Time (RESIT) intervention for reducing sitting time in individuals with type 2 diabetes: findings from a randomised-controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Reducing and breaking up sitting is recommended for optimal management of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Yet, there is limited evidence of interventions targeting these outcomes in individuals with this condition. The primary aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of delivering and evaluating a tailored online intervention to reduce and break up sitting in adults with T2DM. METHODS: A mixed-methods two-arm randomised controlled feasibility trial was conducted in ambulatory adults with T2DM who were randomised 1:1 to the REgulate your SItting Time (RESIT) intervention or usual care control group. The intervention included online education, self-monitoring and prompt tools (wearable devices, smartphone apps, computer apps) and health coaching. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment, attrition, data completion rates and intervention acceptability. Measurements of device-assessed sitting (intended primary outcome for definitive trial), standing and stepping, and physical function, psychosocial health and wellbeing were taken at baseline, 3 months and 6 months. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted at six-months (post intervention) to explore acceptability, feasibility and experiences of the trial and intervention using the Framework Method. RESULTS: Seventy participants aged 55 ± 11 years were recruited. Recruitment rate (proportion of eligible participants enrolled into the study) was 67% and participant retention rate at 6 months was 93% (n = 5 withdrawals). Data completion rates for daily sitting were 100% at baseline and ranged from 83 to 91% at 3 months and 6 months. Descriptive analysis demonstrated potential for the intervention to reduce device-measured sitting, which was 30.9 ± 87.2 and 22.2 ± 82.5 min/day lower in the intervention group at 3 and 6 months, respectively, compared with baseline. In the control group, sitting was 4.4 ± 99.5 and 23.7 ± 85.2 min/day lower at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Qualitative analysis identified three themes: reasons for participating in the trial, acceptability of study procedures, and the delivery and experience of taking part in the RESIT intervention. Overall, the measurement visits and intervention were acceptable to participants. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of the RESIT intervention and evaluation methods, supporting a future definitive trial. If RESIT is found to be clinically effective, this could lead to changes in diabetes healthcare with a focus on reducing sitting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with ISRCTN (number ISRCTN14832389).

The Frail-LESS (LEss Sitting and Sarcopenia in Frail older adults) intervention to improve sarcopenia and maintain independent living via reductions in prolonged sitting: a randomised controlled feasibility trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia is a progressive and generalised loss of muscle mass and function with advancing age and is a major contributor to frailty. These conditions lead to functional disability, loss of independence, and lower quality of life. Sedentary behaviour is adversely associated with sarcopenia and frailty. Reducing and breaking up sitting should thus be explored as an intervention target for their management. The primary aim of this study, therefore, is to examine the feasibility, safety, and acceptability of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) that evaluates a remotely delivered intervention to improve sarcopenia and independent living via reducing and breaking up sitting in frail older adults. METHODS: This mixed-methods randomised controlled feasibility trial will recruit 60 community-dwelling older adults aged ≥ 65 years with very mild or mild frailty. After baseline measures, participants will be randomised to receive the Frail-LESS (LEss Sitting and Sarcopenia in Frail older adults) intervention or serve as controls (usual care) for 6 months. Frail-LESS is a remotely delivered intervention comprising of tailored feedback on sitting, information on the health risks of excess sitting, supported goal setting and action planning, a wearable device that tracks inactive time and provides alerts to move, health coaching, and peer support. Feasibility will be assessed in terms of recruitment, retention and data completion rates. A process evaluation will assess intervention acceptability, safety, and fidelity of the trial. The following measures will be taken at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months: sitting, standing, and stepping using a thigh-worn activPAL4 device, sarcopenia (via hand grip strength, muscle mass, and physical function), mood, wellbeing, and quality of life. DISCUSSION: This study will determine the feasibility, safety, and acceptability of evaluating a remote intervention to reduce and break up sitting to support improvements in sarcopenia and independent living in frail older adults. A future definitive RCT to determine intervention effectiveness will be informed by the study findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN17158017; Registered 6 August 2021, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN17158017.

A-REST (Activity to Reduce Excessive Sitting Time): A Feasibility Trial to Reduce Prolonged Sitting in Police Staff.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of a theory-derived sedentary workplace intervention for police office staff. Twenty-four staff participated in an 8-week intervention (single arm, pre-post design) incorporating an education session, team competition with quick response (QR) codes, team trophy, weekly leaderboard newsletters, a self-monitoring phone app, and electronic prompt tools. The intervention supported participants to reduce and break up their sitting time with three minutes of incidental movement every 30 min at work. Feasibility and acceptability were assessed using mixed methods via the RE-AIM QuEST and PRECIS-2 frameworks. The intervention was highly pragmatic in terms of eligibility, organisation, adherence, outcome, and analysis. It was slightly less pragmatic on recruitment and setting. Delivery and follow-up were more explanatory. Reach and adoption indicators demonstrated feasibility among police staff, across a range of departments, who were demographically similar to participants in previous office-based multi-component interventions. The intervention was delivered mostly as planned with minor deviations from protocol (implementation fidelity). Participants perceived the intervention components as highly acceptable. Results showed improvements in workplace sitting and standing, as well as small improvements in weight and positive affect. Evaluation of the intervention in a fully powered randomised controlled trial to assess behaviour and health outcomes is recommended.

Evaluating a multi-component intervention to reduce and break up office workers' sitting with sit-stand desks using the APEASE criteria.

OBJECTIVE: Sedentary workplace interventions have had success in reducing excessive sitting time in office workers, but barriers to implementation and uptake remain. This study formally assessed a theory-derived, sit-stand desk intervention using the APEASE (Acceptability, Practicability, Effectiveness, Affordability, Side-effects, Equity) criteria. METHODS: Thirteen adults (eight female, mean age 38 ± 10 years) from the treatment arm of a sedentary behaviour intervention participated in semi-structured interviews. Thematic codes were inductively assigned to data items followed by deductive charting using the APEASE criteria. RESULTS: The intervention was highly acceptable, practicable, safe to deploy, and helped workers reduce workplace sitting time, though individual preferences and workload mediated engagement. Affordability of sit-stand desks and Equity of access were potential barriers to uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Through the lens of the APEASE criteria, this theory-derived, multi-component sit-stand desk intervention showed acceptability, practicability and effectiveness in reducing and breaking up sedentary time at work with minimal side effects. Using this approach with further tailoring and personalisation may help workers achieve greater reductions in workplace sitting, though affordability and equity should be considered further.

Perceived influences on reducing prolonged sitting in police staff: a qualitative investigation using the Theoretical Domains Framework and COM-B model.

BACKGROUND: Workplace interventions have shown promise for reducing sitting in office workers. Police office staff remain an understudied population group that work within a disciplined organisation with distinctive work tasks around public safety, potentially affecting their capability, opportunity, and motivation to change sitting behaviour. This study aimed to assess the perceived influences on reducing workplace sitting in non-operational, desk-based police staff in order to derive theoretical determinants for behaviour change. METHODS: Ten police staff from a single police force in Bedfordshire, England [eight female; 39.5 ± 11.5 years] took part in face-to-face semi-structured interviews lasting 46 ± 11 min on average. Thematic analysis identified key themes which were then mapped onto the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and linked to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model. RESULTS: Seven themes were identified: 'Work tasks are seated', 'Social norm is to sit', 'Belief in ability to regulate behaviour', 'Knowledge of health risks', 'Organisational support', 'Impact on productivity', and 'Perceived autonomy for sitting reduction'. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of behaviour and health impacts (Capability), social and physical support to sit less (Opportunity), and habit formation techniques (Motivation) are recommended considerations in sitting reduction workplace interventions for police staff.

A randomised-controlled feasibility study of the REgulate your SItting Time (RESIT) intervention for reducing sitting time in individuals with type 2 diabetes: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: People with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) generally spend a large amount of time sitting. This increases their risk of cardiovascular disease, premature mortality, diabetes-related complications and mental health problems. There is a paucity of research that has evaluated interventions aimed at reducing and breaking up sitting in people with T2DM. The primary aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of delivering and evaluating a tailored intervention to reduce and break up sitting in ambulatory adults with T2DM. METHODS: This is a mixed-methods randomised controlled feasibility trial. Participants (n=70) with T2DM aged 18-85 years who sit ≥7 h/day and are able to ambulate independently will be randomly allocated to receive the REgulate your SItting Time (RESIT) intervention or usual care (control group) for 24 weeks. RESIT is a person-focused intervention that delivers a standardised set of behaviour change techniques to the participants, but the mode through which they are delivered can vary depending on the tools selected by each participant. The intervention includes an online education programme, health coach support, and a range of self-selected tools (smartphone apps, computer-prompt software, and wearable devices) that deliver behaviour change techniques such as self-monitoring of sitting and providing prompts to break up sitting. Measures will be taken at baseline, 12 and 24 weeks. Eligibility, recruitment, retention and data completion rates will be used to assess trial feasibility. Sitting, standing and stepping will be measured using a thigh-worn activity monitor. Cardiometabolic health, physical function, psychological well-being, sleep and musculoskeletal symptoms will also be assessed. A process evaluation will be conducted including evaluation of intervention acceptability and fidelity. DISCUSSION: This study will identify the feasibility of delivering a tailored intervention to reduce and break up sitting in ambulatory adults with T2DM and evaluating it through a randomised controlled trial (RCT) design. The findings will inform a fully powered RCT to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN14832389 ; Registered 6 August 2020.

The Effectiveness of Sedentary Behaviour Reduction Workplace Interventions on Cardiometabolic Risk Markers: A Systematic Review.

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).

Breaking barriers: using the behavior change wheel to develop a tailored intervention to overcome workplace inhibitors to breaking up sitting time.

BACKGROUND: The workplace is a prominent domain for excessive sitting. The consequences of increased sitting time include adverse health outcomes such as cardiovascular disease and poor mental wellbeing. There is evidence that breaking up sitting could improve health, however, any such intervention in the workplace would need to be informed by a theoretical evidence-based framework. The aim of this study was to use the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to develop a tailored intervention to break up and reduce workplace sitting in desk-based workers. METHODS: The BCW guide was followed for this qualitative, pre-intervention development study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 office workers (26-59 years, mean age 40.9 [SD = 10.8] years; 68% female) who were purposively recruited from local council offices and a university in the East of England region. The interview questions were developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Transcripts were deductively analysed using the COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation - Behaviour) model of behaviour. The Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy Version 1 (BCTv1) was thereafter used to identify possible strategies that could be used to facilitate change in sitting behaviour of office workers in a future intervention. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis using COM-B identified that participants felt that they had the physical Capability to break up their sitting time, however, some lacked the psychological Capability in relation to the knowledge of both guidelines for sitting time and the consequences of excess sitting. Social and physical Opportunity was identified as important, such as a supportive organisational culture (social) and the need for environmental resources (physical). Motivation was highlighted as a core target for intervention, both reflective Motivation, such as beliefs about capability and intention and automatic in terms of overcoming habit through reinforcement. Seven intervention functions and three policy categories from the BCW were identified as relevant. Finally, 39 behaviour change techniques (BCTs) were identified as potential active components for an intervention to break up sitting time in the workplace. CONCLUSIONS: The TDF, COM-B model and BCW can be successfully applied through a systematic process to understand the drivers of behaviour of office workers to develop a co-created intervention that can be used to break up and decrease sitting in the workplace. Intervention designers should consider the identified BCW factors and BCTs when developing interventions to reduce and break up workplace sitting.