Cargando…
Systematic review of process evaluations of interventions in trials investigating sedentary behaviour in adults
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and synthesise findings from process evaluations of interventions in trials which measured sedentary behaviour as an outcome in adults to explore: (1) how intervention content, implementation, mechanisms of impact and context influence outcomes and (2) how these...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8804646/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35105631 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053945 |
_version_ | 1784643123570278400 |
---|---|
author | Johansson, Jessica Faye Lam, Natalie Ozer, Seline Hall, Jennifer Morton, Sarah English, Coralie Fitzsimons, Claire F Lawton, Rebecca Forster, Anne Clarke, David |
author_facet | Johansson, Jessica Faye Lam, Natalie Ozer, Seline Hall, Jennifer Morton, Sarah English, Coralie Fitzsimons, Claire F Lawton, Rebecca Forster, Anne Clarke, David |
author_sort | Johansson, Jessica Faye |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and synthesise findings from process evaluations of interventions in trials which measured sedentary behaviour as an outcome in adults to explore: (1) how intervention content, implementation, mechanisms of impact and context influence outcomes and (2) how these interventions are experienced from different perspectives (participants, carers, staff). DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis underpinned by the Medical Research Council process evaluation framework. DATA SOURCES: Databases searches were conducted in March 2019 then updated in May 2020 and October 2021 in: CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, AMED; EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included: Process evaluations of trials including interventions where sedentary behaviour was measured as an outcome in adults aged 16 or over from clinical or non-clinical populations. We excluded studies if interventions were delivered in educational or workplace settings, or if they were laboratory studies focused on immediate effects of breaking sitting. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted and coded data into a framework and assessed the quality of studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We synthesised findings using a narrative approach. RESULTS: 17 process evaluations were included. Five interventions focused on reducing sedentary behaviour or sitting time, 12 aimed to increase physical activity or promote healthier lifestyles. Process evaluations indicated changes in sedentary behaviour outcomes were shaped by numerous factors including: barriers (eg, staffing difficulties and scheduling problems) and facilitators (eg, allowing for flexibility) to intervention delivery; contextual factors (eg, usual lifestyle and religious events) and individual factors (eg, pain, tiredness, illness, age and individual preferences). DISCUSSION: Intervention requires careful consideration of different factors that could influence changes in sedentary behaviour outcomes to ensure that interventions can be tailored to suit different individuals and groups. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018087403. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8804646 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88046462022-02-07 Systematic review of process evaluations of interventions in trials investigating sedentary behaviour in adults Johansson, Jessica Faye Lam, Natalie Ozer, Seline Hall, Jennifer Morton, Sarah English, Coralie Fitzsimons, Claire F Lawton, Rebecca Forster, Anne Clarke, David BMJ Open Public Health OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and synthesise findings from process evaluations of interventions in trials which measured sedentary behaviour as an outcome in adults to explore: (1) how intervention content, implementation, mechanisms of impact and context influence outcomes and (2) how these interventions are experienced from different perspectives (participants, carers, staff). DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis underpinned by the Medical Research Council process evaluation framework. DATA SOURCES: Databases searches were conducted in March 2019 then updated in May 2020 and October 2021 in: CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, AMED; EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included: Process evaluations of trials including interventions where sedentary behaviour was measured as an outcome in adults aged 16 or over from clinical or non-clinical populations. We excluded studies if interventions were delivered in educational or workplace settings, or if they were laboratory studies focused on immediate effects of breaking sitting. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted and coded data into a framework and assessed the quality of studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We synthesised findings using a narrative approach. RESULTS: 17 process evaluations were included. Five interventions focused on reducing sedentary behaviour or sitting time, 12 aimed to increase physical activity or promote healthier lifestyles. Process evaluations indicated changes in sedentary behaviour outcomes were shaped by numerous factors including: barriers (eg, staffing difficulties and scheduling problems) and facilitators (eg, allowing for flexibility) to intervention delivery; contextual factors (eg, usual lifestyle and religious events) and individual factors (eg, pain, tiredness, illness, age and individual preferences). DISCUSSION: Intervention requires careful consideration of different factors that could influence changes in sedentary behaviour outcomes to ensure that interventions can be tailored to suit different individuals and groups. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018087403. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-01-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8804646/ /pubmed/35105631 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053945 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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 Johansson, Jessica Faye Lam, Natalie Ozer, Seline Hall, Jennifer Morton, Sarah English, Coralie Fitzsimons, Claire F Lawton, Rebecca Forster, Anne Clarke, David Systematic review of process evaluations of interventions in trials investigating sedentary behaviour in adults |
title | Systematic review of process evaluations of interventions in trials investigating sedentary behaviour in adults |
title_full | Systematic review of process evaluations of interventions in trials investigating sedentary behaviour in adults |
title_fullStr | Systematic review of process evaluations of interventions in trials investigating sedentary behaviour in adults |
title_full_unstemmed | Systematic review of process evaluations of interventions in trials investigating sedentary behaviour in adults |
title_short | Systematic review of process evaluations of interventions in trials investigating sedentary behaviour in adults |
title_sort | systematic review of process evaluations of interventions in trials investigating sedentary behaviour in adults |
topic | Public Health |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8804646/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35105631 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053945 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT johanssonjessicafaye systematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsintrialsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT lamnatalie systematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsintrialsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT ozerseline systematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsintrialsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT halljennifer systematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsintrialsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT mortonsarah systematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsintrialsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT englishcoralie systematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsintrialsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT fitzsimonsclairef systematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsintrialsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT lawtonrebecca systematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsintrialsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT forsteranne systematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsintrialsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT clarkedavid systematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsintrialsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults |