A protocol for a systematic review of process evaluations of interventions investigating sedentary behaviour in adults
Introduction Sedentary behaviour is defined as any waking behaviour characterised by low energy expenditure ≤1.5 metabolic equivalents while in a sitting, lying or reclining posture. The expanding evidence base suggests that sedentary behaviour may have a detrimental effect on health, well-being and...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2019-09-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/9/e031291.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1846150010352173056 |
|---|---|
| author | Rebecca Lawton Coralie English Amanda Farrin Rekesh Corepal Jessica Faye Hall Claire F Fitzsimons Anne Forster Gillian Mead |
| author_facet | Rebecca Lawton Coralie English Amanda Farrin Rekesh Corepal Jessica Faye Hall Claire F Fitzsimons Anne Forster Gillian Mead |
| author_sort | Rebecca Lawton |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Introduction Sedentary behaviour is defined as any waking behaviour characterised by low energy expenditure ≤1.5 metabolic equivalents while in a sitting, lying or reclining posture. The expanding evidence base suggests that sedentary behaviour may have a detrimental effect on health, well-being and is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. We aim to review process evaluations of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which included a measure of sedentary behaviour in adults in order to develop an understanding of intervention content, mechanisms of impact, implementation and delivery approaches and contexts, in which interventions were reported to be effective or effective. A secondary aim is to summarise participants, family and staff experiences of such interventions.Methods and analysis Ten electronic databases and reference lists from previous similar reviews will be searched. Eligible studies will be process evaluations of RCTs that measure sedentary behaviour as a primary or secondary outcome in adults. As this review will contribute to a programme to develop a community-based intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour in stroke survivors, interventions delivered in schools, colleges, universities or workplaces will be excluded. Two reviewers will perform study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Disagreements between reviewers will be resolved by a third reviewer. Process evaluation data to be extracted include the aims and methods used in the process evaluation; implementation data; mechanisms of impact; contextual factors; participant, family and staff experiences of the interventions. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidance.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required as it is a protocol for a systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.PROSPERO registration number CRD42018087403. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-12f92af8f7fe4dd692e29201897c4c68 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2019-09-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-12f92af8f7fe4dd692e29201897c4c682024-11-29T06:30:09ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552019-09-019910.1136/bmjopen-2019-031291A protocol for a systematic review of process evaluations of interventions investigating sedentary behaviour in adultsRebecca Lawton0Coralie English1Amanda Farrin2Rekesh Corepal3Jessica Faye Hall4Claire F Fitzsimons5Anne Forster6Gillian Mead7Yorkshire Quality and Safety Research Group, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, UK2 School of Health Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, AustraliaLeeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, Clinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), University of Leeds, Leeds, UK1 Academic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, UK1 Academic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, UK4 ISPEHS, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UKAcademic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of Leeds, Bradford, UKCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UKIntroduction Sedentary behaviour is defined as any waking behaviour characterised by low energy expenditure ≤1.5 metabolic equivalents while in a sitting, lying or reclining posture. The expanding evidence base suggests that sedentary behaviour may have a detrimental effect on health, well-being and is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. We aim to review process evaluations of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which included a measure of sedentary behaviour in adults in order to develop an understanding of intervention content, mechanisms of impact, implementation and delivery approaches and contexts, in which interventions were reported to be effective or effective. A secondary aim is to summarise participants, family and staff experiences of such interventions.Methods and analysis Ten electronic databases and reference lists from previous similar reviews will be searched. Eligible studies will be process evaluations of RCTs that measure sedentary behaviour as a primary or secondary outcome in adults. As this review will contribute to a programme to develop a community-based intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour in stroke survivors, interventions delivered in schools, colleges, universities or workplaces will be excluded. Two reviewers will perform study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Disagreements between reviewers will be resolved by a third reviewer. Process evaluation data to be extracted include the aims and methods used in the process evaluation; implementation data; mechanisms of impact; contextual factors; participant, family and staff experiences of the interventions. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidance.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required as it is a protocol for a systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.PROSPERO registration number CRD42018087403.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/9/e031291.full |
| spellingShingle | Rebecca Lawton Coralie English Amanda Farrin Rekesh Corepal Jessica Faye Hall Claire F Fitzsimons Anne Forster Gillian Mead A protocol for a systematic review of process evaluations of interventions investigating sedentary behaviour in adults BMJ Open |
| title | A protocol for a systematic review of process evaluations of interventions investigating sedentary behaviour in adults |
| title_full | A protocol for a systematic review of process evaluations of interventions investigating sedentary behaviour in adults |
| title_fullStr | A protocol for a systematic review of process evaluations of interventions investigating sedentary behaviour in adults |
| title_full_unstemmed | A protocol for a systematic review of process evaluations of interventions investigating sedentary behaviour in adults |
| title_short | A protocol for a systematic review of process evaluations of interventions investigating sedentary behaviour in adults |
| title_sort | protocol for a systematic review of process evaluations of interventions investigating sedentary behaviour in adults |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/9/e031291.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rebeccalawton aprotocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT coralieenglish aprotocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT amandafarrin aprotocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT rekeshcorepal aprotocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT jessicafayehall aprotocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT claireffitzsimons aprotocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT anneforster aprotocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT gillianmead aprotocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT rebeccalawton protocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT coralieenglish protocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT amandafarrin protocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT rekeshcorepal protocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT jessicafayehall protocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT claireffitzsimons protocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT anneforster protocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults AT gillianmead protocolforasystematicreviewofprocessevaluationsofinterventionsinvestigatingsedentarybehaviourinadults |