Onyourfeet_acceptability [BMC Pub Health].pdf (852.91 kB)
Download file

Acceptability of a theory-based sedentary behaviour reduction intervention for older adults ('On Your Feet to Earn Your Seat')

Download (852.91 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 28.10.2015, 12:11 by Raluca Matei, Ingela Thune-Boyle, Mark Hamer, Steve Iliffe, Kenneth R. Fox, Barbara J. Jefferis, Benjamin Gardner
Background: Adults aged 60 years and over spend most time sedentary and are the least physically active of all age groups. This early-phase study explored acceptability of a theory-based intervention to reduce sitting time and increase activity in older adults, as part of the intervention development process. Methods: An 8-week uncontrolled trial was run among two independent samples of UK adults aged 60–75 years. Sample 1, recruited from sheltered housing on the assumption that they were sedentary and insufficiently active, participated between December 2013 and March 2014. Sample 2, recruited through community and faith centres and a newsletter, on the basis of self-reported inactivity (<150 weekly minutes of moderate-to-vigorous activity) and sedentary behaviour (≥6 h mean daily sitting), participated between March and August 2014. Participants received a booklet offering 16 tips for displacing sitting with light-intensity activity and forming activity habits, and self-monitoring ‘tick-sheets’. At baseline, 4-week, and 8-week follow-ups, quantitative measures were taken of physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and habit. At 8 weeks, tick-sheets were collected and a semi-structured interview conducted. Acceptability was assessed for each sample separately, through attrition and adherence to tips, ANOVAs for behaviour and habit changes, and, for both samples combined, thematic analysis of interviews. Results: In Sample 1, 12 of 16 intervention recipients completed the study (25 % attrition), mean adherence was 40 % (per-tip range: 15–61 %), and there were no clear patterns of changes in sedentary or physical activity behaviour or habit. In Sample 2, 23 of 27 intervention recipients completed (15 % attrition), and mean adherence was 58 % (per-tip range: 39–82 %). Sample 2 decreased mean sitting time and sitting habit, and increased walking, moderate activity, and activity habit. Qualitative data indicated that both samples viewed the intervention positively, found the tips easy to follow, and reported health and wellbeing gains. Conclusions: Low attrition, moderate adherence, and favourability in both samples, and positive changes in Sample 2, indicate the intervention was acceptable. Higher attrition, lower adherence, and no apparent behavioural impact among Sample 1 could perhaps be attributable to seasonal influences. The intervention has been refined to address emergent acceptability problems. An exploratory controlled trial is underway.

Funding

The project is supported by a grant from the National Prevention Research Initiative (MR/J000396/1; see http:// www.mrc.ac.uk/research/initiatives/national-prevention-research-initiativenpri/). The funding partners relevant to this award are: Alzheimer’s Research Trust; Alzheimer’s Society; British Heart Foundation; Cancer Research UK; Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health Directorate; Department of Health; Diabetes UK; Economic and Social Research Council; Health and Social Care Research and Development Division of the Public Health Agency; Medical Research Council; Stroke Association; Wellcome Trust; Welsh Assembly Government; and World Cancer Research Fund

History

School

  • Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences

Published in

BMC Public Health

Citation

MATEI, R. ... et al., 2015. Acceptability of a theory-based sedentary behaviour reduction intervention for older adults ('On Your Feet to Earn Your Seat'). BMC Public Health, 15 (606), 16pp.

Publisher

© Matei et al. Published by BioMed Central

Version

VoR (Version of Record)

Publisher statement

This work is made available according to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. Full details of this licence are available at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/

Publication date

2015

Notes

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http:// creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.The project is supported by a grant from the National Prevention Research Initiative (MR/J000396/1; see http:// www.mrc.ac.uk/research/initiatives/national-prevention-research-initiativenpri/).

ISSN

1471-2458

Language

en