Trial reportTranslational behavioral medicine2020
The search for the ejecting chair: a mixed-methods analysis of tool use in a sedentary behavior intervention.
Trial report in Translational behavioral medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02544867 (Optimizing Sedentary Behavior Interventions to Affect Acute Physiological), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Optimizing Sedentary Behavior Interventions to Affect Acute Physiological
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interventions for reducing sedentary behaviour in community-dwelling older adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Understanding for whom, under which circumstances and how sedentary behaviour interventions for older adults work: a realist review.BMJ open · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research is needed on interventions targeting sedentary behavior with appropriate behavior-change tools. The current study used convergent sequential mixed methods (QUAN + qual) to explore tool use during a edentary behavior intervention. Data came from a two-arm randomized sedentary behavior pilot intervention. Participants used a number of intervention tools (e.g., prompts and standing desks). Separate mixed-effects regression models explored associations between change in number of tools and frequency of tool use with two intervention targets: change in sitting time and number of sit-to-stand transitions overtime. Qualitative data explored participants' attitudes towards intervention tools. There was a significant relationship between change in total tool use and sitting time after adjusting for number of tools (β = -12.86, p = .02), demonstrating that a one-unit increase in tool use was associated with an almost 13 min reduction in sitting time. In contrast, there was a significant positive association between change in number of tools and sitting time after adjusting for frequency of tool use (β = 63.70, p = .001), indicating that increasing the number of tools without increasing frequency of tool use was associated with more sitting time. Twenty-four semistructured interviews were coded and a thematic analysis revealed four themes related to tool use: (a) prompts to disrupt behavior; (b) tools matching the goal; (c) tools for sit-to-stand were ineffective; and (d) tool use evolved over time. Participants who honed in on effective tools were more successful in reducing sitting time. Tools for participants to increase sit-to-stand transitions were largely ineffective. This study is registered at clincialtrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02544867.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.