Motivational Counseling to Reduce Sitting Time A Community-Based Randomized Controlled Trial in Adults
Motivational Counseling to Reduce Sitting Time A Community-Based Randomized Controlled Trial in Adults
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.amepre.2014.06.020
复制
发表时间：
2014-11-01
影响因子：
5.5
通讯作者：
Jorgensen, Torben
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Aadahl, Mette;Linneberg, Allan;Jorgensen, Torben
背景资料：久坐行为被认为是心脏代谢病发病率和死亡率的一个独特的危险因素，但针对减少久坐行为的干预措施的有效性的知识是有限的。目的：探讨旨在减少久坐时间的个性化面对面动机咨询干预的效果。设计：一项随机、对照、双盲、基于社区的试验，采用开放式随机化和1：1分配，两个平行组。从基于人群的健康2010研究中连续招募了166名久坐不动的成年人。（通常的生活方式）或干预组与四个单独的理论为基础的咨询会议。主要成果措施：客观测量的整体坐着的时间（ActivPAL 3 TM，7天）;次要指标是在基线和6个月后评估的静坐时间、人体测量指标和心脏代谢生物标志物的中断。数据收集于2010-2012年，并在2013-2014年使用重复测量多元回归分析进行分析。结果：93名参与者被随机分配到干预组，73名参与者被随机分配到对照组，149名参与者完成了研究。干预组的平均坐位时间减少了-0.27小时/天，相当于基线坐位时间（小时/天）的2.9%;对照组的平均坐位时间增加了0.06小时/天。变化的组间差异为-0.32小时/天（95% CI=-0.87，0.24，p=0.26），无统计学显著性。空腹血清胰岛素-5.9 pmol/L变化的显著差异（95% CI=-11.4，-0.5，p=0.03）;稳态模型评估-估计胰岛素抵抗为-0.28（95% CI=-0.53，-0.03，p=0.03）;腰围为-1.42 cm（95%CI =-2.54，-0.29，p =0.01），观察到干预组较好。虽然观察到的坐着时间的减少并不显著，但一个以社区为基础的，个性化的，理论上-一项旨在减少久坐时间的干预计划可能对增加久坐者的站立和改善心脏代谢健康有效。成年人了
Background: Sedentary behavior is regarded as a distinct risk factor for cardiometabolic morbidity and mortality, but knowledge of the efficacy of interventions targeting reductions in sedentary behavior is limited.Purpose: To investigate the effect of an individualized face-to-face motivational counseling intervention aimed at reducing sitting time.Design: A randomized, controlled, observer-blinded, community-based trial with two parallel groups using open-end randomization with 1:1 allocation.Setting/participants: A total of 166 sedentary adults were consecutively recruited from the population-based Health2010 Study.Intervention: Participants were randomized to a control (usual lifestyle) or intervention group with four individual theory-based counseling sessions.Main outcome measures: Objectively measured overall sitting time (ActivPAL 3TM, 7 days); secondary measures were breaks in sitting time, anthropometric measures, and cardiometabolic biomarkers, assessed at baseline and after 6 months. Data were collected in 2010-2012 and analyzed in 2013-2014 using repeated measures multiple regression analyses.Results: Ninety-three participants were randomized to the intervention group and 73 to the control group, and 149 completed the study. The intervention group had a mean sitting time decrease of -0.27 hours/day, corresponding to 2.9% of baseline sitting time (hours/day); the control group increased mean sitting time by 0.06 hours/day. The between-group difference in change, -0.32 hours/day (95% CI=-0.87, 0.24, p=0.26), was not statistically significant. Significant differences in change in fasting serum insulin of -5.9 pmol/L (95% CI=-11.4, -0.5, p=0.03); homeostasis model assessment-estimated insulin resistance of -0.28 (95% CI=-0.53, -0.03, p=0.03); and waist circumference of -1.42 cm (95% CI=-2.54, -0.29, p=0.01) were observed in favor of the intervention group.Conclusions: Although the observed decrease in sitting time was not significant, a community-based, individually tailored, theory-based intervention program aimed at reducing sitting time may be effective for increasing standing and improving cardiometabolic health in sedentary adults.