Search

Background: There is rapidly-emerging evidence on the harmful health effects of sedentary behaviors. The aim of this paper was to quantify time in sedentary behaviors and document socio-demographic variations in different life domains among adults. Methods: A population-based survey was carried out in 2012 through face-to-face interviews with Brazilian adults aged 20+ years (N = 2,927). Information about time spent sedentary in a typical weekday was collected for five different domains (workplace, commuting, school/university, watching TV, and computer use at home). Descriptive and bivariate analyses examined variations in overall and domain-specific sedentary time by gender, age, educational attainment and socioeconomic position. Results: On average, participants reported spending 5.8 (SD 4.5) hours per day sitting. The median value was 4.5 (interquartile range: 2.5–8) hours. Men, younger adults, those with higher schooling and from the wealthiest socioeconomic groups had higher overall sedentary scores. TV time was higher in women, older adults and among those with low schooling and socioeconomic position. Sedentary time in transport was higher in men, younger adults, and participants with high schooling and high socioeconomic position. Computer use at home was more frequent among young adults and those from high socioeconomic groups. Sitting at work was higher in those with higher schooling and from the wealthiest socioeconomic groups. Sedentary behavior at school was related inversely to age and directly to schooling. Conclusion: Patterns of sedentary behavior are different by life domains. Initiatives to reduce prolonged sitting among Brazilian adults will be required on multiple levels for different life domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A recent paper reported the outcomes of a study examining a new self-guided internet-delivered treatment, the Wellbeing Course, for symptoms of anxiety or depression. This study found the intervention resulted in significant symptom reductions. It also found that automated emails increased treatment completion and clinical improvements in a subsample with elevated anxiety and depression. Aims: To examine the clinical outcomes and the effect of automated emails at 12 months post-treatment. Method: Participants, who were randomly allocated to a Treatment Plus Automated Emails Group (TEG; n = 100), a standard Treatment Group (TG; n = 106) or delayed-treatment Waitlist Control Group (Control; n = 51), were followed up at 12 months post-treatment. Eighty-one percent, 78% and 87% of participants in the TEG, TG and treated Waitlist Control Group provided symptom data at 12-month follow-up, respectively. The primary outcome measures were the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Item Scale (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 Item Scale (GAD-7). Results: Significant improvements in symptoms of anxiety and depression were observed over time in both the TEG and TG (Fs >69, ps <.001) these were sustained from post-treatment to 12-month follow-up (ps >.05), and were associated with large effect sizes. No statistically significant differences in symptoms were found between the TEG and TG at post-treatment, 3-month or 12-month follow-up. Previously reported symptom differences between TEG and TG participants with comorbid symptoms were no longer present at 12-month follow-up (ps >.70). Conclusions: The overall benefits of the Wellbeing Course were sustained at 12-month follow-up. Although automated emails facilitated Course completion and reductions in symptoms for participants with comorbid anxiety and depression from pre-post treatment, these differences were no longer observed at 12-month follow-up. The results indicate that automated emails promote more rapid treatment response for people with elevated and comorbid symptoms, but may not improve longer term outcomes. Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610001058066 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Physical activity (PA) typically declines throughout pregnancy. Low levels of PA are associated with excessive weight gain and subsequently increase risk of pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes mellitus, hypertension disorders, delivery by caesarean section and stillbirth. Systematic reviews on PA during pregnancy have not explored the efficacy of behaviour change techniques or related theory in altering PA behaviour. This systematic review evaluated the content of PA interventions to reduce the decline of PA in pregnant women with a specific emphasis on the behaviour change techniques employed to elicit this change. Search and Review Methodology: Literature searches were conducted in eight databases. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were employed. Two reviewers independently evaluated each intervention using the behaviour change techniques (BCT) taxonomy to identify the specific behaviour change techniques employed. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias using the guidelines from the Cochrane Collaboration. Overall quality was determined using the GRADE approach. Findings: A total of 1140 potentially eligible papers were identified from which 14 studies were selected for inclusion. Interventions included counselling (n = 6), structured exercise (n = 6) and education (n = 2). Common behaviour change techniques employed in these studies were goal setting and planning, feedback, repetition and substitution, shaping knowledge and comparison of behaviours. Regular face-to-face meetings were also commonly employed. PA change over time in intervention groups ranged from increases of 28% to decreases of 25%. In 8 out of 10 studies, which provided adequate data, participants in the intervention group were more physically active post intervention than controls. Conclusions and Implications: Physical activity interventions incorporating behaviour change techniques help reduce the decline in PA throughout pregnancy. Range of behaviour change techniques can be implemented to reduce this decline including goals and planning, shaping knowledge and comparison of outcomes. A lack of high quality interventions hampers conclusions of intervention effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]