Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Original research
Six-week behaviour change intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomised controlled trial
  1. Sonia Wing Mei Cheng1,2,
  2. Jennifer Alison1,3,
  3. Emmanuel Stamatakis4,
  4. Sarah Dennis1,5,
  5. Renae McNamara6,7,
  6. Lissa Spencer8,
  7. Zoe McKeough1
  1. 1Discipline of Physiotherapy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2Department of Physiotherapy, Macquarie University Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  3. 3Allied Health Professorial Unit, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  4. 4Charles Perkins Centre, School of Public Health, Prevention Research Collaboration, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  5. 5Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  6. 6Department of Physiotherapy, Prince of Wales Hospital and Community Health Services, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
  7. 7Woolcock Emphysema Centre, Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  8. 8Department of Physiotherapy, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Sonia Wing Mei Cheng, Discipline of Physiotherapy, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Susan Wakil Health Building, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2050, Australia; sonia.cheng{at}sydney.edu.au

Abstract

Introduction This study aimed to determine whether a 6-week behaviour change intervention was more effective than a sham intervention for reducing sedentary behaviour (SB) in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods People with stable COPD on the waitlist for entry into pulmonary rehabilitation were recruited to this multicentre trial with randomisation (independent, concealed allocation) to either an intervention group or sham group, assessor blinding and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The behaviour change intervention consisted of once weekly sessions for 6 weeks with a physiotherapist to reduce SB through education, guided goals setting and real-time feedback on SB. The sham intervention consisted of once weekly phone calls for 6 weeks to monitor health status. SB was measured continuously over 7 days using thigh-worn accelerometry (activPAL3 micro). The primary outcome was time spent in SB. Participants with at least 4 days of ≥10 hours waking wear time were included in the ITT analysis and those who reported achieving ≥70% of goals to reduce SB or who completed all sham calls were included in a per-protocol analysis.

Results 70 participants were recruited and 65 completed the study (mean±SD age 74±9 years, mean FEV1 55%±19% predicted, 49% male). At 6 weeks, no between-group differences in time spent in SB were observed in the ITT analysis (mean difference 5 min/day, 95% CI −38 to 48) or per-protocol analysis (−16 min/day, 95% CI −80 to 48).

Discussion A 6-week behaviour change intervention did not reduce time in SB compared with a sham intervention in people with stable moderate-to-severe COPD prior to pulmonary rehabilitation.

  • emphysema
  • exercise
  • psychology

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. Deidentified participant data are available on reasonable request from ZJM (zoe.mckeough@sydney.edu.au). The study protocol has been published and is available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphys.2017.04.001.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. Deidentified participant data are available on reasonable request from ZJM (zoe.mckeough@sydney.edu.au). The study protocol has been published and is available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphys.2017.04.001.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Twitter @soniawmcheng, @RenaeMcnamara

  • Contributors SWMC, JAA, ES, SD and ZJM contributed to conception and design of the research project and analysis and interpretation of the findings. SWMC, RM and LS were responsible for experimental data collection and data management. All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript and critical appraisal of content.

  • Funding This work was supported by the Physiotherapy Research Foundation under a Seeding Grant (number S16-011) and the Better Breathing Foundation.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.