On Your Feet to Earn Your Seat: pilot RCT of a theory-based sedentary behaviour reduction intervention for older adults.
On Your Feet to Earn Your Seat: pilot RCT of a theory-based sedentary behaviour reduction intervention for older adults.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s40814-017-0139-6
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
Gardner B
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
White I;Smith L;Aggio D;Shankar S;Begum S;Matei R;Fox KR;Hamer M;Iliffe S;Jefferis BJ;Tyler N;Gardner B
在所有年龄组中，老年人大部分时间都坐着，身体活动最少。这项连续、混合方法的可行性研究采用随机对照试验设计，评估试验基于习惯的干预方法，以轻度活动取代老年人的久坐行为，并探索对行为结果的影响。入选标准为年龄60-74岁、退休、休闲坐姿≥6小时/天。在英国的四个地点收集数据。干预措施包括一本小册子，概述了15个打破久坐习惯和将活动习惯融入通常不活动环境的“技巧”，以及8个每周自我监测表。对照组是一份非习惯性的促进活动和减少久坐的情况说明书。使用计算机生成的1：1区组随机化时间表，受试者对分配不知情。参与者在治疗前基线、8周和12周随访时自我报告久坐行为（两个指数）、久坐习惯、身体活动（步行、中度、剧烈活动）和活动习惯，并在12周时接受采访。主要可行性结局为损耗、不良事件和干预依从性。次要结局是行为改变。在104名知情同意的参与者中，103名被随机分配（干预组N = 52，对照组N = 51）。在接受分配治疗的98例患者中，91例（93%;干预组N = 45;对照组N = 46）完成了试验。干预组报告了1例相关不良事件。9/15个头端在7周内的平均每头端粘附率≥50%。定性数据表明程序的可接受性，特别是在干预接受者中，分配的治疗。两组似乎都减少了久坐行为，增加了体力活动，但两组之间的变化程度没有明显差异。试验方法是可以接受和可行的，但干预并没有明显优于对照组，尽管它没有在最久坐和不活跃的人群中进行试验。在大规模确定性试验之前，可能需要进一步开发干预措施。一种可能的改进办法是将干预的联合收割机要素与信息方法结合起来，以提高效力。 ISRCTN 47901994（注册日期：2014年1月16日;试用结束日期：2015年4月30日）本文的在线版本（doi：10.1186/s40814-017-0139-6）包含补充材料，可供授权用户使用。
Of all age groups, older adults spend most of the time sitting and are least physically active. This sequential, mixed-methods feasibility study used a randomised controlled trial design to assess methods for trialling a habit-based intervention to displace older adults’ sedentary behaviour with light activity and explore impact on behavioural outcomes. Eligibility criteria were age 60–74 years, retired, and ≥6 h/day leisure sitting. Data were collected across four sites in England. The intervention comprised a booklet outlining 15 ‘tips’ for disrupting sedentary habits and integrating activity habits into normally inactive settings, and eight weekly self-monitoring sheets. The control was a non-habit-based factsheet promoting activity and sedentary reduction. A computer-generated 1:1 block-randomisation schedule was used, with participants blinded to allocation. Participants self-reported sedentary behaviour (two indices), sedentary habit, physical activity (walking, moderate, vigorous activity) and activity habit, at pre-treatment baseline, 8- and 12-week follow-ups and were interviewed at 12 weeks. Primary feasibility outcomes were attrition, adverse events and intervention adherence. The secondary outcome was behavioural change. Of 104 participants consented, 103 were randomised (intervention N = 52, control N = 51). Of 98 receiving allocated treatment, 91 (93%; intervention N = 45; control N = 46) completed the trial. One related adverse event was reported in the intervention group. Mean per-tip adherence across 7 weeks was ≥50% for 9/15 tips. Qualitative data suggested acceptability of procedures, and, particularly among intervention recipients, the allocated treatment. Both groups appeared to reduce sedentary behaviour and increase their physical activity, but there were no apparent differences between groups in the extent of change. Trial methods were acceptable and feasible, but the intervention conferred no apparent advantage over control, though it was not trialled among the most sedentary and inactive population for whom it was developed. Further development of the intervention may be necessary prior to a large-scale definitive trial. One possible refinement would combine elements of the intervention with an informational approach to enhance effectiveness. ISRCTN47901994 (registration date: 16th January 2014; trial end date 30th April 2015) The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40814-017-0139-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.