Drivers of unprofessional behaviour between staff in acute care hospitals: a realist review.

BACKGROUND: Unprofessional behaviours (UB) between healthcare staff are rife in global healthcare systems, negatively impacting staff wellbeing, patient safety and care quality. Drivers of UBs include organisational, situational, team, and leadership issues which interact in complex ways. An improved understanding of these factors and their interactions would enable future interventions to better target these drivers of UB. METHODS: A realist review following RAMESES guidelines was undertaken with stakeholder input. Initial theories were formulated drawing on reports known to the study team and scoping searches. A systematic search of databases including Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE and HMIC was performed to identify literature for theory refinement. Data were extracted from these reports, synthesised, and initial theories tested, to produce refined programme theories. RESULTS: We included 81 reports (papers) from 2,977 deduplicated records of grey and academic reports, and 28 via Google, stakeholders, and team members, yielding a total of 109 reports. Five categories of contributor were formulated: (1) workplace disempowerment; (2) harmful workplace processes and cultures; (3) inhibited social cohesion; (4) reduced ability to speak up; and (5) lack of manager awareness and urgency. These resulted in direct increases to UB, reduced ability of staff to cope, and reduced ability to report, challenge or address UB. Twenty-three theories were developed to explain how these contributors work and interact, and how their outcomes differ across diverse staff groups. Staff most at risk of UB include women, new staff, staff with disabilities, and staff from minoritised groups. UB negatively impacted patient safety by impairing concentration, communication, ability to learn, confidence, and interpersonal trust. CONCLUSION: Existing research has focused primarily on individual characteristics, but these are inconsistent, difficult to address, and can be used to deflect organisational responsibility. We present a comprehensive programme theory furthering understanding of contributors to UB, how they work and why, how they interact, whom they affect, and how patient safety is impacted. More research is needed to understand how and why minoritised staff are disproportionately affected by UB. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study was registered on the international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care (PROSPERO): https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021255490 .

Interventions to address unprofessional behaviours between staff in acute care: what works for whom and why? A realist review.

BACKGROUND: Unprofessional behaviour (UB) between staff encompasses various behaviours, including incivility, microaggressions, harassment, and bullying. UB is pervasive in acute healthcare settings and disproportionately impacts minoritised staff. UB has detrimental effects on staff wellbeing, patient safety and organisational resources. While interventions have been implemented to mitigate UB, there is limited understanding of how and why they may work and for whom. METHODS: This study utilised a realist review methodology with stakeholder input to improve understanding of these complex context-dependent interventions. Initial programme theories were formulated drawing upon scoping searches and reports known to the study team. Purposive systematic searches were conducted to gather grey and published global literature from databases. Documents were selected if relevant to UB in acute care settings while considering rigour and relevance. Data were extracted from these reports, synthesised, and initial theories tested, to produce refined programme theories. RESULTS: Of 2977 deduplicated records, 148 full text reports were included with 42 reports describing interventions to address UB in acute healthcare settings. Interventions drew on 13 types of behaviour change strategies and were categorised into five types of intervention (1) single session (i.e. one off); (2) multiple session; (3) single or multiple sessions combined with other actions (e.g. training sessions plus a code of conduct); (4) professional accountability and reporting programmes and; (5) structured culture change interventions. We formulated 55 context-mechanism-outcome configurations to explain how, why, and when these interventions work. We identified twelve key dynamics to consider in intervention design, including importance of addressing systemic contributors, rebuilding trust in managers, and promoting a psychologically safe culture; fifteen implementation principles were identified to address these dynamics. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to address UB are still at an early stage of development, and their effectiveness to reduce UB and improve patient safety is unclear. Future interventions should incorporate knowledge from behavioural and implementation science to affect behaviour change; draw on multiple concurrent strategies to address systemic contributors to UB; and consider the undue burden of UB on minoritised groups. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study was registered on the international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care (PROSPERO): https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021255490 .

Modelling lifecycles of inter-organizational collaborations in healthcare: a systematic review and best-fit framework synthesis.

PURPOSE: Inter-organisational collaboration (IOC) across healthcare settings has been put forward as a solution to mounting financial and sustainability challenges. Whilst ingredients for successful IOC have been explored, there remains limited understanding of the development of IOCs over time. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The authors systematically reviewed the literature to identify models applied to IOCs in healthcare across databases such as Healthcare Management Information Consortium (HMIC) and MEDLINE, identifying 2,763 titles and abstracts with 26 final papers included. The authors then used a "best fit" framework synthesis methodology to synthesise fourteen models of IOC in healthcare and the wider public sector to formulate an applied composite model describing the process through which collaborations change over time. This synthesis comprised extracting stages and behaviours from included models, selecting an a priori framework upon which to code these stages and behaviours and then re-coding them to construct a new composite model. FINDINGS: Existing models often did not consider that organisations may undergo many IOCs in the organisations' lifetime nor included "contemplation" stages or those analogous to "dissolution", which might negatively impact papers using such models. The formulated' composite model utilises a life-cycle design comprising five non-linear phases, namely Contemplating, Connecting, Planning, Implementation and Maintenance or Dissolution and incorporates dynamic elements from Complex Adaptive Systems thinking to reflect the dynamic nature of collaborations. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This is the first purpose-built model of the lifecycles of IOCs in healthcare. The model is intended to inform implementers, evaluators and researchers of IOCs alike.

Towards achieving interorganisational collaboration between health-care providers: a realist evidence synthesis.

Background: Interorganisational collaboration is currently being promoted to improve the performance of NHS providers. However, up to now, there has, to the best of our knowledge, been no systematic attempt to assess the effect of different approaches to collaboration or to understand the mechanisms through which interorganisational collaborations can work in particular contexts. Objectives: Our objectives were to (1) explore the main strands of the literature about interorganisational collaboration and to identify the main theoretical and conceptual frameworks, (2) assess the empirical evidence with regard to how different interorganisational collaborations may (or may not) lead to improved performance and outcomes, (3) understand and learn from NHS evidence users and other stakeholders about how and where interorganisational collaborations can best be used to support turnaround processes, (4) develop a typology of interorganisational collaboration that considers different types and scales of collaboration appropriate to NHS provider contexts and (5) generate evidence-informed practical guidance for NHS providers, policy-makers and others with responsibility for implementing and assessing interorganisational collaboration arrangements. Design: A realist synthesis was carried out to develop, test and refine theories about how interorganisational collaborations work, for whom and in what circumstances. Data sources: Data sources were gathered from peer-reviewed and grey literature, realist interviews with 34 stakeholders and a focus group with patient and public representatives. Review methods: Initial theories and ideas were gathered from scoping reviews that were gleaned and refined through a realist review of the literature. A range of stakeholder interviews and a focus group sought to further refine understandings of what works, for whom and in what circumstances with regard to high-performing interorganisational collaborations. Results: A realist review and synthesis identified key mechanisms, such as trust, faith, confidence and risk tolerance, within the functioning of effective interorganisational collaborations. A stakeholder analysis refined this understanding and, in addition, developed a new programme theory of collaborative performance, with mechanisms related to cultural efficacy, organisational efficiency and technological effectiveness. A series of translatable tools, including a diagnostic survey and a collaboration maturity index, were also developed. Limitations: The breadth of interorganisational collaboration arrangements included made it difficult to make specific recommendations for individual interorganisational collaboration types. The stakeholder analysis focused exclusively on England, UK, where the COVID-19 pandemic posed challenges for fieldwork. Conclusions: Implementing successful interorganisational collaborations is a difficult, complex task that requires significant time, resource and energy to achieve the collaborative functioning that generates performance improvements. A delicate balance of building trust, instilling faith and maintaining confidence is required for high-performing interorganisational collaborations to flourish. Future work: Future research should further refine our theory by incorporating other workforce and user perspectives. Research into digital platforms for interorganisational collaborations and outcome measurement are advocated, along with place-based and cross-sectoral partnerships, as well as regulatory models for overseeing interorganisational collaborations. Study registration: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019149009. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

How can the collaboration between health-care providers be improved? There are continuing concerns about poor patient care across the NHS. One of the ways in which governments have tried to solve these issues is by getting services to work together, rather than separately, to solve any problems. The aim of our review is to learn about how, why and when different approaches to working together ­ which we call interorganisational collaboration ­ can be used to improve the performance of NHS providers. We reviewed published evidence and carried out interviews with NHS staff. We also carried out interviews and a focus group with patient and public representatives. Our review finds that interorganisational collaborations can work well when a series of elements are in place, which includes the need to build trust between everyone involved. Having a belief in the collaboration is also needed to help inspire others to get involved. To try and reduce possible problems, setting priorities and having clear methods to show how improvements can be achieved are important, as well as having an agreed contract in place to ensure that any conflicts are resolved. If done well, collaboration can improve resource allocation, coordination, communication and shared learning about best practice. Our review provides valuable evidence of how different approaches to interorganisational collaboration can be used by NHS providers to work together to improve services in different situations. Our review provides different options for organisations to reflect on how well they are collaborating, which includes the involvement of key stakeholders, such as patients, the public and communities.

Knowledge of Nutrition and Physical Activity Guidelines is Not Associated with Physical Function in Dutch Older Adults Attending a Healthy Ageing Public Engagement Event.

Purpose: Evidence-based guidelines on nutrition and physical activity are used to increase knowledge in order to promote a healthy lifestyle. However, actual knowledge of guidelines is limited and whether it is associated with health outcomes is unclear. Participants and Methods: This inception cohort study aimed to investigate the association of knowledge of nutrition and physical activity guidelines with objective measures of physical function and physical activity in community-dwelling older adults attending a public engagement event in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Knowledge of nutrition and physical activity according to Dutch guidelines was assessed using customized questionnaires. Gait speed and handgrip strength were proxies of physical function and the Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire was used to assess physical activity in minutes/week. Linear regression analysis, stratified by gender and adjusted for age, was used to study the association between continuous and categorical knowledge scores with outcomes. Results: In 106 older adults (mean age=70.1 SD=6.6, years) who were highly educated, well-functioning, and generally healthy, there were distinct knowledge gaps in nutrition and physical activity which did not correlate with one another (R2=0.013, p=0.245). Knowledge of nutrition or physical activity guidelines was not associated with physical function or physical activity. However, before age-adjustment nutrition knowledge was positively associated with HGS in males (B= 0.64 (95% CI: 0.05, 1.22)) and having knowledge above the median was associated with faster gait speed in females (B=0.10 (95% CI: 0.01, 0.19)). Conclusion: Our findings may represent a ceiling effect of the impact knowledge has on physical function and activity in the this high performing and educated population and that there may be other determinants of behavior leading to health status such as attitude and perception to consider in future studies.

Why do acute healthcare staff engage in unprofessional behaviours towards each other and how can these behaviours be reduced? A realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Unprofessional behaviours encompass many behaviours including bullying, harassment and microaggressions. These behaviours between healthcare staff are problematic; they affect people's ability to work, to feel psychologically safe at work and speak up and to deliver safe care to patients. Almost a fifth of UK National Health Service staff experience unprofessional behaviours in the workplace, with higher incidence in acute care settings and for staff from minority backgrounds. Existing analyses have investigated the effectiveness of strategies to reduce these behaviours. We seek to go beyond these, to understand the range and causes of such behaviours, their negative effects and how mitigation strategies may work, in which contexts and for whom. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study uses a realist review methodology with stakeholder input comprising a number of iterative steps: (1) formulating initial programme theories drawing on informal literature searches and literature already known to the study team, (2) performing systematic and purposive searches for grey and peer-reviewed literature on Embase, CINAHL and MEDLINE databases as well as Google and Google Scholar, (3) selecting appropriate documents while considering rigour and relevance, (4) extracting data, (5) and synthesising and (6) refining the programme theories by testing the theories against the newly identified literature. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical review is not required as this study is a secondary research. An impact strategy has been developed which includes working closely with key stakeholders throughout the project. Step 7 of our project will develop pragmatic resources for managers and professionals, tailoring contextually-sensitive strategies to reduce unprofessional behaviours, identifying what works for which groups. We will be guided by the 'Evidence Integration Triangle' to implement the best strategies to reduce unprofessional behaviours in given contexts. Dissemination will occur through presentation at conferences, innovative methods (cartoons, videos, animations and/or interactive performances) and peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021255490.

Collaboration over competition? Regulatory reform and inter-organisational relations in the NHS amidst the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, England's Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) released a White Paper outlining proposed legislative reform of the National Health Service (NHS). Key to the proposals is the shift from relationships between providers based on competition, to cooperation, as the central driver of improved performance and quality. Against this background we explore potential regulatory barriers and enablers to collaboration identified by key NHS stakeholders and assess whether the proposed policy changes are likely to deliver the desired improvement in collaborative relationships, in the context of challenges experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted 32 semi-structured interviews with 30 key stakeholders, taking place during the COVID-19 pandemic from Jan 2020 to May 2021. Participants were selected for their expertise regarding collaboration and were recruited purposively. Interviews were conducted online with the use of video conferencing software. The interviews were thematically analysed to identify themes. Proposals contained in the DHSC White Paper helped to structure the thematic analysis, interpretation, and reporting of the results. RESULTS: Requirements to compete to provide services, regulatory ability to block collaborative arrangements, lack of collaboration between providers and Clinical Commissioning Groups, and current lack of data sharing were found to hamper collaborative efforts. These issues often negatively affected collaborative relations by increasing bureaucracy and prompted leaders to attempt to avoid future collaborations. Other barriers included opaque accountability arrangements, and erosion of trust in regulators. The COVID-19 pandemic was found to foster collaboration between organisations, but some changes mandated by the new legislation may stifle further collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the proposed legislative changes in the White Paper would help to remove existing barriers to service integration and collaboration identified by stakeholders. However, the proposed shift in the concentration of power from NHS England to the DHSC may exacerbate historically low levels of trust between providers and regulators. Many of the proposed changes fail to address endemic NHS policy issues such as chronic understaffing. Further dialogue is needed at all levels of the health and social care system to ensure future legislative changes meet the needs of all stakeholders.

How, when, and why do inter-organisational collaborations in healthcare work? A realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Inter-organisational collaborations (IOCs) in healthcare have been viewed as an effective approach to performance improvement. However, there remain gaps in our understanding of what helps IOCs function, as well as how and why contextual elements affect their implementation. A realist review of evidence drawing on 86 sources has sought to elicit and refine context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) to understand and refine these phenomena, yet further understanding can be gained from interviewing those involved in developing IOCs. METHODS: We used a realist evaluation methodology, adopting prior realist synthesis findings as a theoretical framework that we sought to refine. We drew on 32 interviews taking place between January 2020 and May 2021 with 29 stakeholders comprising IOC case studies, service users, as well as regulatory perspectives in England. Using a retroductive analysis approach, we aimed to test CMOCs against these data to explore whether previously identified mechanisms, CMOCs, and causal links between them were affirmed, refuted, or revised, and refine our explanations of how and why interorganisational collaborations are successful. RESULTS: Most of our prior CMOCs and their underlying mechanisms were supported in the interview findings with a diverse range of evidence. Leadership behaviours, including showing vulnerability and persuasiveness, acted to shape the core mechanisms of collaborative functioning. These included our prior mechanisms of trust, faith, and confidence, which were largely ratified with minor refinements. Action statements were formulated, translating theoretical findings into practical guidance. CONCLUSION: As the fifth stage in a larger project, our refined theory provides a comprehensive understanding of the causal chain leading to effective collaborative inter-organisational relationships. These findings and recommendations can support implementation of IOCs in the UK and elsewhere. Future research should translate these findings into further practical guidance for implementers, researchers, and policymakers.

When trust, confidence, and faith collide: refining a realist theory of how and why inter-organisational collaborations in healthcare work.

BACKGROUND: Health systems are facing unprecedented socioeconomic pressures as well as the need to cope with the ongoing strain brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. In response, the reconfiguration of health systems to encourage greater collaboration and integration has been promoted with a variety of collaborative shapes and forms being encouraged and developed. Despite this continued interest, evidence for success of these various arrangements is lacking, with the links between collaboration and improved performance often remaining uncertain. To date, many examinations of collaborations have been undertaken, but use of realist methodology may shed additional light on how and why collaboration works, and whom it benefits. METHODS: This paper seeks to test initial context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) of interorganisational collaboration with the view to producing a refined realist theory. This phase of the realist synthesis used case study and evaluation literature; combined with supplementary systematic searches. These searches were screened for rigour and relevance, after which CMOCs were extracted from included literature and compared against existing ones for refinement, refutation, or affirmation. We also identified demi-regularities to better explain how these CMOCs were interlinked. RESULTS: Fifty-one papers were included, from which 338 CMOCs were identified, where many were analogous. This resulted in new mechanisms such as 'risk threshold' and refinement of many others, including trust, confidence, and faith, into more well-defined constructs. Refinement and addition of CMOCs enabled the creation of a 'web of causality' depicting how contextual factors form CMOC chains which generate outputs of collaborative behaviour. Core characteristics of collaborations, such as whether they were mandated or cross-sector, were explored for their proposed impact according to the theory. CONCLUSION: The formulation of this refined realist theory allows for greater understanding of how and why collaborations work and can serve to inform both future work in this area and the implementation of these arrangements. Future work should delve deeper into collaborative subtypes and the underlying drivers of collaborative performance. REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review is part of a larger realist synthesis, registered at PROSPERO with ID CRD42019149009 .

Why do some inter-organisational collaborations in healthcare work when others do not? A realist review.

BACKGROUND: Inter-organisational collaboration is increasingly prominent within contemporary healthcare systems. A range of collaboration types such as alliances, networks, and mergers have been proposed as a means to turnaround organisations, by reducing duplication of effort, enabling resource sharing, and promoting innovations. However, in practice, due to the complexity of the process, such efforts are often rife with difficulty. Notable contributions have sought to make sense of this area; however, further understanding is needed in order to gain a better understanding of why some inter-organisational collaborations work when others do not, to be able to more effectively implement collaborations in the future. METHODS: Realist review methodology was used with the intention of formulating context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) to explain how inter-organisational collaborations work and why, combining systematic and purposive literature search techniques. The systematic review encompassed searches for reviews, commentaries, opinion pieces, and case studies on HMIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Social Policy and Practice databases, and further searches were conducted using Google Scholar. Data were extracted from included studies according to relevance to the realist review. RESULTS: Fifty-three papers were included, informing the development of programme theories of how, why, and when inter-organisational collaborations in healthcare work. Formulation of our programme theories incorporated the concepts of partnership synergy and collaborative inertia and found that it was essential to consider mechanisms underlying partnership functioning, such as building trust and faith in the collaboration to maximise synergy and thus collaborative performance. More integrative or mandated collaboration may lean more heavily on contract to drive collaborative behaviour. CONCLUSION: As the first realist review of inter-organisational collaborations in healthcare as an intervention for improvement, this review provides actionable evidence for policymakers and implementers, enhancing understanding of mechanisms underlying the functioning and performing of inter-organisational collaborations, as well as how to configure the context to aid success. Next steps in this research will test the results against further case studies and primary data to produce a further refined theory. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019149009.

A novel behavioural INTErvention to REduce Sitting Time in older adults undergoing orthopaedic surgery (INTEREST): results of a randomised-controlled feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is a prevalent condition in older adults that causes many patients to require a hip or knee replacement. Reducing patients' sedentariness prior to surgery may improve physical function and post-operative outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic randomised-controlled feasibility study with 2:1 allocation into intervention or usual care groups. The intervention, based on Self-Determination Theory, involved techniques to reduce sedentary behaviour, including motivational interviewing, setting of behavioural goals, and more. The primary outcome was feasibility, assessed using mixed methods. We included exploratory measures to inform a future definitive trial, such as ActivPal3 accelerometry to measure movement, the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), Basic Psychological Needs, and cardiometabolic biomarkers. Assessments were at baseline, 1-week pre-surgery, and 6-week post-surgery. RESULTS: We recruited 35 participants aged ≥ 60 years approximately 8 weeks before hip or knee arthroplasty. Participant uptake rate was 14.2%, and retention rate 85.7%. Participants were very satisfied with the study which was found to be feasible with some modifications. Exploratory within-group comparisons found that the intervention has potential to improve SPPB by 0.71 points from baseline to pre-surgery, a clinically significant increase, and reduce sedentary time by up to 66 min d-1. CONCLUSION: In this older surgical population, it is feasible to use behavioural techniques to displace sedentary time to activity and to conduct a trial spanning the period of surgical intervention. This may improve physical function and surgical outcomes. The INTEREST intervention is now ready for evaluation in a full-scale randomised-controlled trial. REGISTRATION: This trial was registered on Clinicaltrials.gov on 13/11/2018. ID: NCT03740412.

A novel behavioural INTErvention to REduce Sitting Time in older adults undergoing orthopaedic surgery (INTEREST): protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is a highly prevalent condition in older adults, that causes many sufferers to require a hip or knee replacement in order to improve their quality of life and reduce pain. Individuals waiting for hip or knee replacements are often highly sedentary; thus, it is pertinent to assess whether reducing their sedentariness prior to surgery may aid in improving post-operative outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: The study will be a randomised controlled feasibility trial design, with 2:1 randomisation into an intervention and usual care group respectively. A target of 45 patients aged 60 years or older waiting for elective hip and knee replacements will be recruited from Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK, approximately 8-10 weeks before surgery. The intervention, informed by Self-Determination Theory (SDT), will be composed of multiple behaviour change techniques, namely, motivational interviewing, feedback on current objectively measured sedentary behaviour and activity, goal-setting, environmental modification, self-monitoring, and social support. Assessments will occur at baseline, 1 week pre-surgery, and 6 weeks post-surgery. The primary outcome will be the feasibility of intervention delivery and of the trial procedures, assessed quantitatively based on rates of recruitment, retention, measures-completion, and intervention fidelity assessment, and with mixed-methods assessment of acceptability, practicality, adaption, satisfaction, and safety. Exploratory outcomes will include physical function, cardiometabolic biomarkers, measurement of SDT constructs, and both objective and subjective measurement of physical activity and sedentariness. The study will last up to 18 weeks per participant. No formal between-group comparisons are planned, but the variance in within-group changes and differences between groups in outcome measures will be explored and reported with 95% confidence intervals. DISCUSSION: This is the first study assessing the feasibility of an intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour in older adults with mobility limitations, and the first to assess whether such a reduction could work in a prehabilitative context prior to surgery. The results of this study will help inform the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered on Clinicaltrials.gov. Registration number: NCT03740412. Date of registration: 13/11/2018.

Interventions targeting sedentary behavior in non-working older adults: a systematic review.

Sedentary behavior has been found to be associated with negative health outcomes independently of physical activity in older adults. This systematic review collates interventions to reduce sedentary behavior in non-working older adults, assessing whether they are effective, feasible, and safe. A systematic search identified 2560 studies across five databases. Studies were included where participants were ≥60 years on average with none younger than 45, and participants did not work >2 days per week. A total of six studies were identified, three of which included control groups, while the other three were repeated-measures pre-post designs. Only one study randomised participants. The overall level of quality of included studies was poor. A narrative synthesis was conducted, as the level of heterogeneity in outcomes and outcome reporting were too high for a meta-analysis to be performed. The narrative synthesis suggested that interventions have the potential to reduce sitting time in non-working older adults. Included studies reported feasible and safe implementations of their interventions in most samples, except for one subsample from a study of people in sheltered housing. Objectively measured reductions in sitting time were between 3.2% and 5.3% of waking time, or up to 53.9 min per day. Future studies should employ more rigorous designs to assess the effects of reducing sedentary behavior on health and physical function, and should include follow-ups to measure the duration of behavior change.