ArticleBMC public health2025
Does the intervention approach matter for improving 24-hour physical behaviours among overweight and obese Brazilian office workers?
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysical behaviours over a 24-hour period are important for health. However, we do not know if interventions using a "24-hour time-use approach" are more effective in improving 24-hour time-use behaviours than the traditional "reduce sitting at work approach". Thus, the aim of our non-randomised controlled study was to investigate this in a high-risk group of overweight and obese Brazilian office workers.
methodsForty-five office workers were allocated to three non-randomised controlled groups; "Reduce sitting at work" (n = 15) receiving an intervention focused on reducing sitting time at work; the "24-hour" (n = 15) receiving an intervention aiming to reduce sitting at work as well as promoting behavioural changes around 24 hours (e.g., sedentary lifestyle, benefits of physical activity, and healthy sleep hygiene); or "control" (n = 15) without any intervention. Daily time spent in physical behaviours (sitting, standing, active, and in bed) was monitored for 7 days using a thigh-worn accelerometer at baseline, and at the 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Intervention effects were analysed using linear mixed models, adjusted for baseline values, age, and sex, with a compositional data analysis approach.
resultsAt baseline, the demographic characteristics and 24-hour physical behaviours of the groups were similar. No significant intervention effect was observed between the intervention groups for the overall 24-hour composition, except for time-in-bed, which decreased for Reduce sitting at work compared to 24-hour group from baseline to the 6-month follow-up (p-value = 0.02). Compared to the control group, both intervention approaches resulted in less time spent sitting, more time standing, and less time-in-bed from baseline to the 3-month follow-up, but these effects were not sustained at the 6-month follow-up. Notably, domain-specific (i.e., work and leisure) analysis revealed that most changes in the overall 24-hour composition occurred due to changes in behaviours during working hours.
conclusionsAmong Brazilian overweight and obese office workers, the "24-hour time-use approach" may not lead to better improvements in overall 24-hour composition of physical behaviours compared to the traditional "reduce sitting at work approach".
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.