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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Reducing sedentary time in adults at risk of type 2 diabetes : process evaluation of the STAND (Sedentary Time ANd Diabetes) RCT. / Biddle, Stuart J H; Edwardson, C L; Gorely, Trish; Wilmot, E G; Yates, T; Nimmo, Myra; Khunti, Kamlesh; Davies, M.

In: BMC Public Health, Vol. 17, 80, 14.01.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Biddle, Stuart J H ; Edwardson, C L ; Gorely, Trish ; Wilmot, E G ; Yates, T ; Nimmo, Myra ; Khunti, Kamlesh ; Davies, M. / Reducing sedentary time in adults at risk of type 2 diabetes : process evaluation of the STAND (Sedentary Time ANd Diabetes) RCT. In: BMC Public Health. 2017 ; Vol. 17.

Bibtex

@article{3a4bb65c054841c0b9c5bab41dfb195b,
title = "Reducing sedentary time in adults at risk of type 2 diabetes: process evaluation of the STAND (Sedentary Time ANd Diabetes) RCT",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Biddle, {Stuart J H} and Edwardson, {C L} and Trish Gorely and Wilmot, {E G} and T Yates and Myra Nimmo and Kamlesh Khunti and M Davies",
year = "2017",
month = jan,
day = "14",
doi = "10.1186/s12889-016-3941-9",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
journal = "BMC Public Health",
issn = "1471-2458",
publisher = "Springer",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reducing sedentary time in adults at risk of type 2 diabetes

T2 - process evaluation of the STAND (Sedentary Time ANd Diabetes) RCT

AU - Biddle, Stuart J H

AU - Edwardson, C L

AU - Gorely, Trish

AU - Wilmot, E G

AU - Yates, T

AU - Nimmo, Myra

AU - Khunti, Kamlesh

AU - Davies, M

PY - 2017/1/14

Y1 - 2017/1/14

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.1186/s12889-016-3941-9

DO - 10.1186/s12889-016-3941-9

M3 - Article

VL - 17

JO - BMC Public Health

JF - BMC Public Health

SN - 1471-2458

M1 - 80

ER -