Acceptability of smartphone technology to interrupt sedentary time in adults with diabetes

Abstract

Breaking up sitting time with light-or moderate-intensity physical activity may help to alleviate some negative health effects of sedentary behavior, but few studies have examined ways to effectively intervene. This feasibility study examined the acceptability of a new technology (NEAT!) developed to interrupt prolonged bouts (≥20 min) of sedentary time among adults with type 2 diabetes. Eight of nine participants completed a 1-month intervention and agreed that NEAT! made them more conscious of sitting time. Most participants (87.5 %) expressed a desire to use NEAT! in the future. Sedentary time decreased by 8.1±4.5 %, and light physical activity increased by 7.9±5.5 % over the 1-month period. The results suggest that NEAT! is an acceptable technology to intervene on sedentary time among adults with type 2 diabetes. Future studies are needed to examine the use of the technology among larger samples and determine its effects on glucose and insulin levels.

Targeting Reductions in Sitting Time to Increase Physical Activity and Improve Health

“…This approach may be effective for desk workers while they are at their desks but it is context-limited. Others have tried to loosen this spatial leash by using smartphones to trigger notifications when extended periods of inactivity have been detected (8, 59). Although it is difficult to detect sedentary behavior “in the wild” with smartphones alone, prompts triggered by extended periods of inactivity have proven to be effective at reducing sedentary time.…”

Nonworksite Interventions to Reduce Sedentary Behavior among Adults: A Systematic Review

“…Full study characteristics for these interventions are detailed in Table 1. Of the thirteen studies, seven were randomized controlled trials (1, 3, 9, 14, 16, 17, 22), five utilized a single-sample ‘pre-post’ design (4, 10, 11, 18, 23), and one used a quasi-experimental (non-randomized) design consisting of a post hoc addition to a larger observational study (15). …”

“…Sample sizes ranged from n=9 (23) to n=819 (17). Although only adults were included, some studies focused specifically on either younger (18–40 years) (3, 9) or older adults (≥60 years) (10, 11, 18); therefore, mean age ranged greatly between studies (mean ages: 20.1 years to 74.3 years).…”

“…Although only adults were included, some studies focused specifically on either younger (18–40 years) (3, 9) or older adults (≥60 years) (10, 11, 18); therefore, mean age ranged greatly between studies (mean ages: 20.1 years to 74.3 years). Further, five studies focused specifically on healthy adults (1, 9–11, 15), four on overweight and obese adults (BMI ≥25 kg/m 2 ) (3, 4, 14, 22), and two on adults with either diabetes (23) or risk factors for diabetes (3). All studies included both males and females, although eight of the included 13 interventions had a majority (>50%) of female participants (1, 3, 4, 11, 15, 16, 18, 22, 23).…”

“…In regards to the non-randomized controlled trials reviewed in this analysis (n=6) (4, 10, 11, 15, 18, 23), it should be noted that these studies should be considered to have lower methodological quality to that of the randomized controlled trials. Specifically, we note that potential biases are likely to be greater for these studies when compared with the randomized trials, regardless of the latter’s score on the Delphi scale as described above.…”