Nonworksite Interventions to Reduce Sedentary Behavior among Adults: A Systematic Review.
Nonworksite Interventions to Reduce Sedentary Behavior among Adults: A Systematic Review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1249/tjx.0000000000000036
复制
发表时间：
2017-06-15
影响因子：
0.9
通讯作者：
Cadmus-Bertram L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Thraen-Borowski KM;Ellingson LD;Meyer JD;Cadmus-Bertram L
久坐行为已被确定为主要的健康风险。虽然减少久坐时间的干预措施已变得越来越普遍，但针对成年人的绝大多数工作都集中在工作场所久坐行为，并且通常将减少久坐干预措施与增加体力活动结合起来。随着旨在专门减少久坐时间（不仅限于工作场所）的研究的出现，有必要确定策略和方法以及这些干预措施的可行性和有效性。我们在电子数据库中搜索了久坐干预措施，其资格标准包括：(a) 旨在明确减少久坐行为的干预措施，且不限于工作场所；(b) 针对久坐行为的特定结果；(c) 年龄至少 18 岁的成年人；以及 (d) 用英语撰写。总共确定了 767 份全文手稿，其中 13 项研究符合所有资格标准。虽然不同研究的干预特征和方法质量差异很大，但 13 项研究中有 10 项观察到干预后客观测量的静坐时间显着减少。在那些收集参与者可行性/可接受性数据的研究中，所有研究都报告干预措施被视为“有利到非常有利”，会再次使用，并且参与者负担相当低，表明这些干预措施是可行的。不限于工作场所的久坐行为干预似乎在很大程度上有效。虽然久坐时间减少的幅度有所不同，但结果令人鼓舞。然而，由于证据较少和研究设计的可变性，我们目前对“最佳实践”做出总体陈述的能力是有限的。需要进行更长时间、更大样本的良好对照试验，使用基于理论的干预措施和一致的处方来限制久坐时间。
Sedentary behavior has been identified as a major health risk. While interventions to reduce time spent sedentary have become increasingly prevalent, the vast majority of this work in adults has been focused on workplace sedentary behavior, and often pairs sedentary reduction interventions with increasing physical activity. As research designed to specifically decrease sedentary time that is not limited to the workplace becomes available, identifying strategies and approaches, along with feasibility and efficacy of these interventions, is warranted. Electronic databases were searched for sedentary interventions with eligibility criteria including: (a) interventions designed to explicitly reduce sedentary behavior that were not limited to the workplace, (b) outcomes specific to sedentary behavior, (c) adults aged at least 18 years, and (d) written in English. A total of 767 full-text manuscripts were identified, with thirteen studies meeting all eligibility criteria. While intervention characteristics and methodological quality varied greatly among studies, ten of the thirteen studies observed a significant reduction in objectively measured sitting time post-intervention. In those studies that collected participant feasibility/acceptability data, all reported that the intervention was viewed as “favorable to very favorable,” would use again, and that participant burden was quite low, suggesting that these interventions were feasible. Sedentary behavior interventions not limited to the workplace appear to be largely efficacious. While results varied with respect to the magnitude of the decrease in time spent sedentary, they are encouraging. However, due to the small body of evidence and the variability of study designs, our ability to make overarching statements regarding “best practices” at this time is limited. Well-controlled trials of longer duration with larger samples, using theoretically-based interventions with consistent prescriptions for limiting sedentary time are needed.