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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Johansson, Jessica Faye, Lam, Natalie, Ozer, Seline, Hall, Jennifer, Morton, Sarah, English, Coralie, Fitzsimons, Claire F, Lawton, Rebecca, Forster, Anne, Clarke, David
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