Background No systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions for reducing non-occupational sedentary behaviour are available. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of interventions for reducing non-occupational sedentary behaviour in adults and older adults.
Methods An electronic search of nine databases was performed. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) and cluster RCTs among adults testing the effectiveness of interventions aimed to reduce non-occupational sedentary behaviour were considered for inclusion. Two review authors independently screened studies for eligibility, completed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias.
Results Nineteen studies that evaluated multicomponent lifestyle interventions, counselling or education, television (TV) control devices and workplace interventions were included. Evidence from the meta-analyses suggested that interventions can reduce leisure sitting time in adults in the medium term (−30 min/day; 95% CI −58 to –2), and TV viewing in the short term (−61 min/day; 95% CI −79 to –43) and medium term (−11 min/day; 95% CI −20 to –2). No significant pooled effects were found for transport sitting time, leisure-time computer use and longer term outcomes. No evidence was available on the effectiveness of interventions for reducing non-occupational sedentary time in older adults.
Conclusions The findings of this systematic review suggest the interventions may be effective in reducing non-occupational sedentary behaviour in the short to medium term in adults. However, no significant effect was found on longer term outcomes. The quality of evidence was, however, low to very low. No evidence was available on the effectiveness of non-occupational interventions on reducing sedentary time in older adults. Further high-quality research with larger samples is warranted.
- TV viewing
- leisure sitting
- computer use
- transport sitting
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors NS and ZP conceived the idea for the review. NS, ZP, SJHB and JAB conceptualised the review. NS took the lead in writing the protocol. NS and ZP designed the systematic search strategies. NS and HP conducted the study selection. NS and GW did the data extraction. NS and JG did risk of bias assessment and GRADE assessment. NS and ZP conducted the data analysis. NS drafted the initial manuscript. ZP, GW, JG, AP, SJHB, JAB and HP contributed to writing the manuscript.
Competing interests SJHB received a sit-to-stand desk from Ergotron from 2012 to 2014, received consultancy fees from Halpern PR paid to the Victoria University, and gave professional advice to Active Working and Get Britain Standing and Bluearth. JAB had a research fellowship partially funded by Fitness Australia, a not-for-profit association.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Author note This article is a part of a PhD project of the first author, NS, supervised by AP, SJHB and ZP (principal supervisor).
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.