Cargando…
A protocol for a systematic review of process evaluations of interventions investigating sedentary behaviour in adults
INTRODUCTION: Sedentary behaviour is defined as any waking behaviour characterised by low energy expenditure ≤1.5 metabolic equivalents while in a sitting, lying or reclining posture. The expanding evidence base suggests that sedentary behaviour may have a detrimental effect on health, well-being an...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6756361/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31537573 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031291 |
_version_ | 1783453384058077184 |
---|---|
author | Corepal, Rekesh Hall, Jessica Faye English, Coralie Farrin, Amanda Fitzsimons, Claire F Forster, Anne Lawton, Rebecca Mead, Gillian Clarke, David |
author_facet | Corepal, Rekesh Hall, Jessica Faye English, Coralie Farrin, Amanda Fitzsimons, Claire F Forster, Anne Lawton, Rebecca Mead, Gillian Clarke, David |
author_sort | Corepal, Rekesh |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Sedentary behaviour is defined as any waking behaviour characterised by low energy expenditure ≤1.5 metabolic equivalents while in a sitting, lying or reclining posture. The expanding evidence base suggests that sedentary behaviour may have a detrimental effect on health, well-being and is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. We aim to review process evaluations of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which included a measure of sedentary behaviour in adults in order to develop an understanding of intervention content, mechanisms of impact, implementation and delivery approaches and contexts, in which interventions were reported to be effective or effective. A secondary aim is to summarise participants, family and staff experiences of such interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Ten electronic databases and reference lists from previous similar reviews will be searched. Eligible studies will be process evaluations of RCTs that measure sedentary behaviour as a primary or secondary outcome in adults. As this review will contribute to a programme to develop a community-based intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour in stroke survivors, interventions delivered in schools, colleges, universities or workplaces will be excluded. Two reviewers will perform study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Disagreements between reviewers will be resolved by a third reviewer. Process evaluation data to be extracted include the aims and methods used in the process evaluation; implementation data; mechanisms of impact; contextual factors; participant, family and staff experiences of the interventions. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as it is a protocol for a systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018087403. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6756361 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67563612019-10-07 A protocol for a systematic review of process evaluations of interventions investigating sedentary behaviour in adults Corepal, Rekesh Hall, Jessica Faye English, Coralie Farrin, Amanda Fitzsimons, Claire F Forster, Anne Lawton, Rebecca Mead, Gillian Clarke, David BMJ Open Public Health INTRODUCTION: Sedentary behaviour is defined as any waking behaviour characterised by low energy expenditure ≤1.5 metabolic equivalents while in a sitting, lying or reclining posture. The expanding evidence base suggests that sedentary behaviour may have a detrimental effect on health, well-being and is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. We aim to review process evaluations of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which included a measure of sedentary behaviour in adults in order to develop an understanding of intervention content, mechanisms of impact, implementation and delivery approaches and contexts, in which interventions were reported to be effective or effective. A secondary aim is to summarise participants, family and staff experiences of such interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Ten electronic databases and reference lists from previous similar reviews will be searched. Eligible studies will be process evaluations of RCTs that measure sedentary behaviour as a primary or secondary outcome in adults. As this review will contribute to a programme to develop a community-based intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour in stroke survivors, interventions delivered in schools, colleges, universities or workplaces will be excluded. Two reviewers will perform study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Disagreements between reviewers will be resolved by a third reviewer. Process evaluation data to be extracted include the aims and methods used in the process evaluation; implementation data; mechanisms of impact; contextual factors; participant, family and staff experiences of the interventions. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as it is a protocol for a systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018087403. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-09-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6756361/ /pubmed/31537573 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031291 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Public Health Corepal, Rekesh Hall, Jessica Faye English, Coralie Farrin, Amanda Fitzsimons, Claire F Forster, Anne Lawton, Rebecca Mead, Gillian Clarke, David A protocol for a systematic review of process evaluations of interventions investigating sedentary behaviour in adults |
title | A protocol for a systematic review of process evaluations of interventions investigating sedentary behaviour in adults |
title_full | A protocol for a systematic review of process evaluations of interventions investigating sedentary behaviour in adults |
title_fullStr | A protocol for a systematic review of process evaluations of interventions investigating sedentary behaviour in adults |
title_full_unstemmed | A protocol for a systematic review of process evaluations of interventions investigating sedentary behaviour in adults |
title_short | A protocol for a systematic review of process evaluations of interventions investigating sedentary behaviour in adults |
title_sort | protocol for a systematic review of process evaluations of interventions investigating sedentary behaviour in adults |
topic | Public Health |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6756361/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31537573 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031291 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT corepalrekesh aprotocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT halljessicafaye aprotocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT englishcoralie aprotocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT farrinamanda aprotocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT fitzsimonsclairef aprotocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT forsteranne aprotocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT lawtonrebecca aprotocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT meadgillian aprotocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT clarkedavid aprotocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT corepalrekesh protocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT halljessicafaye protocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT englishcoralie protocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT farrinamanda protocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT fitzsimonsclairef protocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT forsteranne protocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT lawtonrebecca protocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT meadgillian protocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT clarkedavid protocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults |