Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35641923›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

Qualitative comparative analysis of the implementation fidelity of a workplace sedentary reduction intervention.

Krista S Leonard, Sarah L Mullane, Caitlin A Golden, Sarah A Rydell, Nathan R Mitchell, Alexis Koskan, Paul A Estabrooks, Mark A Pereira, Matthew P Buman

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02566317 (Stand & Move at Work), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT02566317 nacompletednot on this map

Stand & Move at Work: A Group Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorArizona State UniversityRan2016 to 2018Enrolled630ConditionsObesity, Hypertension, DiabetesArmsSit-Stand workstation, Move
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Krista S LeonardCollege of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, 425 N 5 th Street, Phoenix, AZ, 85004, USA. Krista.leonard@asu.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2225-7846
Sarah L MullaneJohnson & Johnson Health and Wellness Solutions, Inc, New Brunswick, USA.
Caitlin A GoldenCollege of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical School, Omaha, USA.
Sarah A RydellSchool of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.
Nathan R MitchellSchool of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.
Alexis KoskanCollege of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, 425 N 5 th Street, Phoenix, AZ, 85004, USA.
Paul A EstabrooksCollege of Health, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA.
Mark A PereiraSchool of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.
Matthew P BumanCollege of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, 425 N 5 th Street, Phoenix, AZ, 85004, USA.

Funding

Stand & Move at Work II: Effectiveness and ImplementationR01CA250527 · NCI · ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-TEMPE CAMPUS · PI BUMAN, MATTHEW P, PEREIRA, MARK A · 2020 to 2024
$3.3M
Stand and Move at Work: A Group-Randomized TrialR01CA198971 · NCI · ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-TEMPE CAMPUS · PI BUMAN, MATTHEW P, PEREIRA, MARK A · 2015 to 2018
$2.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA198971NCI NIH HHS R01 CA250527
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStand and Move at Work was a 12-month, multicomponent, peer-led (intervention delivery personnel) worksite intervention to reduce sedentary time. Although successful, the magnitude of reduced sedentary time varied by intervention worksite. The purpose of this study was to use a qualitative comparative analysis approach to examine potential explanatory factors that could distinguish higher from lower performing worksites based on reduced sedentary time.

methodsWe assessed 12-month changes in employee sedentary time objectively using accelerometers at 12 worksites. We ranked worksites based on the magnitude of change in sedentary time and categorized sites as higher vs. lower performing. Guided by the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework, we created an indicator of intervention fidelity related to adherence to the protocol and competence of intervention delivery personnel (i.e., implementer). We then gathered information from employee interviews and surveys as well as delivery personnel surveys. These data were aggregated, entered into a truth table (i.e., a table containing implementation construct presence or absence), and used to examine differences between higher and lower performing worksites.

resultsThere were substantive differences in the magnitude of change in sedentary time between higher (-75.2 min/8 h workday, CI

conclusionsHigher intervention adherence and implementer competence is necessary for greater program success. These findings illustrate the need for future research to identify what factors may influence intervention fidelity, and in turn, effectiveness.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02566317 . Registered 2 October 2015, first participant enrolled 11 January 2016.

Indexed as

ExerciseWorkplaceHumansInterior Design and FurnishingsSedentary BehaviorWalkingAdherenceCompetenceFidelityImplementationSedentaryWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID35641923
PMCPMC9158295

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.