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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Corepal, Rekesh, Hall, Jessica Faye, English, Coralie, Farrin, Amanda, Fitzsimons, Claire F, Forster, Anne, Lawton, Rebecca, Mead, Gillian, Clarke, David
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