Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31537573›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

A protocol for a systematic review of process evaluations of interventions investigating sedentary behaviour in adults.

Rekesh Corepal, Jessica Faye Hall, Coralie English, Amanda Farrin, Claire F Fitzsimons, Anne Forster, Rebecca Lawton, Gillian Mead, David Clarke

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Rekesh CorepalAcademic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, UK rekesh.corepal@bthft.nhs.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-9335-2130
Jessica Faye HallAcademic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, UK.
Coralie EnglishSchool of Health Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5910-7927
Amanda FarrinClinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Claire F FitzsimonsISPEHS, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Anne ForsterAcademic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Rebecca LawtonInstitute of Psychological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5832-402X
Gillian MeadGeriatric Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
David ClarkeAcademic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6279-1192
University of Leeds · GBBradford Royal Infirmary · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AU

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0615-20019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSedentary 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.

Indexed as

ExerciseSedentary BehaviorHealth PromotionHumansProcess Assessment, Health CareResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as Topicprocess evaluationprotocolsedentary behavioursystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31537573
PMCPMC6756361
OpenAlexW2974072201

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.