Reducing sedentary time in adults at risk of type 2 diabetes: process evaluation of the STAND (Sedentary Time ANd Diabetes) RCT

BMC Public Health

Research Article

Emma G. Wilmot¹  Kamlesh Khunti²  Thomas Yates²  Charlotte L. Edwardson²  Melanie J. Davies²  Myra A. Nimmo³  Stuart J. H. Biddle⁴  Trish Gorely⁵ 

[1] Leicester Diabetes Centre, Leicester General Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK;Derby Teaching Hospitals, Derby, UK;Leicester Diabetes Centre, Leicester General Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK;The NIHR Leicester-Loughborough Diet, Lifestyle and Physical Activity Biomedical Research Unit, Leicester, UK;School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK;The NIHR Leicester-Loughborough Diet, Lifestyle and Physical Activity Biomedical Research Unit, Leicester, UK;College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK;School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK;The NIHR Leicester-Loughborough Diet, Lifestyle and Physical Activity Biomedical Research Unit, Leicester, UK;Institute of Sport, Exercise & Active Living, Victoria University, Footscray Park, 8001, Melbourne, VIC, Australia;School of Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK;

关键词: Physical Activity;    Behaviour Change;    Sedentary Behaviour;    Sedentary Time;    Workshop Educator;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12889-016-3941-9

 received in 2016-07-13, accepted in 2016-12-14,  发布年份 2017

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundReducing sedentary behaviour may have important health implications. This study evaluated the potential enablers and barriers for outcomes of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) designed to evaluate a pragmatic education based intervention designed to reduce sedentary (sitting) behaviour in young adults at high risk of type 2 diabetes.MethodsData were collected from participants in the intervention group immediately after an educational workshop addressing sedentary time and diabetes risk (n = 71), through phone interviews 6 weeks (n = 45) after the workshop, and at the conclusion of the 12-month trial (n = 10). The two education session facilitators were also interviewed about the intervention.ResultsThe RCT showed no difference in sedentary time at 12 months between intervention and control arms. The lack of behaviour change appeared not to be attributed to the workshops, which were well led and very favourably received according to feedback. However, factors contributing to this lack of behaviour change include lack of perceived health risk from baseline measures feedback; the preference to adopt physically active behaviours rather than to sit less; certain barriers to sitting less; motivational drift after the 3-month follow-up measurements where participants had no contact for a further 9 months; and, for some, unreliability of the self-monitoring tool.ConclusionsThe workshop was well led and well received by the attendees but future interventions need to consider more contact with participants, discuss any specific benefits around simply standing to reduce sitting time, address the barriers to sitting less, and provide a more user-friendly and reliable self-monitoring tool.Trial registrationCurrent controlled trials ISRCTN08434554, MRC project 91409. Registered retrospectively on 22 February 2011.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s). 2017