Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Where Does the Time Go? Displacement of Device-Measured Sedentary Time in Effective Sedentary Behaviour Interventions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
Sports Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Research has shown the effectiveness of sedentary behaviour interventions on reducing sedentary time. However, no systematic review has studied where the reduced sedentary time after such interventions is displaced to.

Objective

Our objective was to synthesize the evidence from interventions that have reduced sedentary behaviour and test the displacement of sedentary time into physical activity (light physical activity [LPA], moderate-to-vigorous physical activity [MVPA], standing, and stepping).

Methods

Two independent researchers performed a systematic search of the EBSCOhost, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases. Meta-analyses were performed to examine the time reallocated from sedentary behaviour to physical activity during working time and the whole day in intervention trials (randomized/non-randomized controlled/non-controlled).

Results

A total of 36 studies met all the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review, with 26 studies included in the meta-analysis. Interventions showed a significant overall increase in worksite LPA (effect size [ES] 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05 to 0.43; P < 0.013) and daily LPA (ES 0.62; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.91; P = 0.001). A statistically significant increase in daily MVPA was observed (ES 0.47; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.67; P < 0.001). There was a significant overall increase in worksite standing time (ES 0.76; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; P < 0.001), daily standing time (ES 0.52; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.65; P < 0.001), and worksite stepping time (ES 0.12; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.20; P = 0.002).

Conclusions

Effective interventions aimed at reducing sedentary behaviour result in a consistent displacement of sedentary time to LPA and standing time, both at worksites and across the whole day, whereas changes in stepping time or MVPA are dependent on the intervention setting. Strategies to reduce sedentary behaviour should not be limited to worksite settings, and further efforts may be required to promote daily MVPA.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO registration number CRD42020153958.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. WHO. WHO Guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behaviour. World Heal. Organ.; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rosenberger ME, Fulton JE, Buman MP, Troiano RP, Grandner MA, Buchner DM, et al. The 24-hour activity cycle: a new paradigm for physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51:454–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Dunstan DW, Kingwell BA, Larsen R, Healy GN, Cerin E, Hamilton MT, et al. Breaking up prolonged sitting reduces postprandial glucose and insulin responses. Diabetes Care. 2012;35:976–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Stamatakis E, Rogers K, Ding D, Berrigan D, Chau J, Hamer M, et al. All-cause mortality effects of replacing sedentary time with physical activity and sleeping using an isotemporal substitution model: a prospective study of 201,129 mid-aged and older adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12:121.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. del Pozo-Cruz J, García-Hermoso A, Alfonso-Rosa RM, Alvarez-Barbosa F, Owen N, Chastin S, et al. Replacing sedentary time: meta-analysis of objective-assessment studies. Am J Prev Med. 2018;55:395–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Meyer JD, Ellingson LD, Buman MP, Shook RP, Hand GA, Blair SN. Current and 1-year psychological and physical effects of replacing sedentary time with time in other behaviors. Am J Prev Med. 2020;59:12–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6:42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Shrestha N, Grgic J, Wiesner G, Parker A, Podnar H, Bennie JA, et al. Effectiveness of interventions for reducing non-occupational sedentary behaviour in adults and older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2019;53:1206–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Martin A, Fitzsimons C, Jepson R, Saunders DH, van der Ploeg HP, Teixeira PJ, et al. Interventions with potential to reduce sedentary time in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49:1056–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gardner B, Smith L, Lorencatto F, Hamer M, Biddle SJH. How to reduce sitting time? A review of behaviour change strategies used in sedentary behaviour reduction interventions among adults. Health Psychol Rev. 2016;10:89–112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chu AHY, Ng SHX, Tan CS, Win AM, Koh D, Müller-Riemenschneider F. A systematic review and meta-analysis of workplace intervention strategies to reduce sedentary time in white-collar workers. Obes Rev. 2016;17:467–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Biddle SJH, Petrolini I, Pearson N. Interventions designed to reduce sedentary behaviours in young people: a review of reviews. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48:182–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mansoubi M, Pearson N, Biddle SJH, Clemes SA. Using Sit-to-stand workstations in offices: is there a compensation effect? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016;48:720–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Armijo-Olivo S, Stiles CR, Hagen NA, Biondo PD, Cummings GG. Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18:12–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis J, Hardeman W, et al. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2013;46:81–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Michie S, Wood CE, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis JJ, Hardeman W. Behaviour change techniques: the development and evaluation of a taxonomic method for reporting and describing behaviour change interventions (a suite of five studies involving consensus methods, randomised controlled trials and analysis of qualitative da. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19:1–188.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Morton SC, Murad MH, O’Connor E, Lee CS, Booth M, Vandermeer BW, et al. Quantitative synthesis—an update. 2018;

  20. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ WV (editors). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane. 2020. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

  21. Bond DS, Thomas JG, Raynor HA, Moon J, Sieling J, Trautvetter J, et al. B-MOBILE–a smartphone-based intervention to reduce sedentary time in overweight/obese individuals: a within-subjects experimental trial. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e100821.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: Audit of primary sources. Br Med J. 2005;331:1064–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Carr LJ, Karvinen K, Peavler M, Smith R, Cangelosi K. Multicomponent intervention to reduce daily sedentary time: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e003261.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Siddique J, de Chavez PJ, Craft LL, Freedson P, Spring B. The effect of changes in physical activity on sedentary behavior: results from a randomized lifestyle intervention trial. Am J Health Promot. 2017;31:287–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Aittasalo M, Livson M, Lusa S, Romo A, Vähä-Ypyä H, Tokola K, et al. Moving to business—changes in physical activity and sedentary behavior after multilevel intervention in small and medium-size workplaces. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:319.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Mitchell BL, Smith AE, Rowlands AV, Fraysse F, Parfitt G, Lewis NR, et al. Promoting physical activity in rural Australian adults using an online intervention. J Sci Med Sport. 2019;22:70–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mailey EL, Rosenkranz SK, Casey K, Swank A. Comparing the effects of two different break strategies on occupational sedentary behavior in a real world setting: a randomized trial. Prev Med reports. 2016;4:423–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Swartz AM, Cho CC, Welch WA, Widlansky ME, Maeda H, Strath SJ. Pattern analysis of sedentary behavior change after a walking intervention. Am J Health Behav. 2018;42:90–101.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Swartz AM, Rote AE, Cho YI, Welch WA, Strath SJ. Responsiveness of motion sensors to detect change in sedentary and physical activity behaviour. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48:1043–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kendzor DE, Shuval K, Gabriel KP, Businelle MS, Ma P, High RR, et al. Impact of a mobile phone intervention to reduce sedentary behavior in a community sample of adults: a quasi-experimental evaluation. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18:e19.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Gardiner PA, Eakin EG, Healy GN, Owen N. Feasibility of reducing older adults’ sedentary time. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41:174–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Koepp GA, Manohar CU, McCrady-Spitzer SK, Ben-Ner A, Hamann DJ, Runge CF, et al. Treadmill desks: a 1-year prospective trial. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2013;21:705–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rosenberg DE, Gell NM, Jones SMW, Renz A, Kerr J, Gardiner PA, et al. The feasibility of reducing sitting time in overweight and obese older adults. Health Educ Behav. 2015;42:669–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Overgaard K, Nannerup K, Lunen MKB, Maindal HT, Larsen RG. Exercise more or sit less? A randomized trial assessing the feasibility of two advice-based interventions in obese inactive adults. J Sci Med Sport. 2018;21:708–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Parry S, Straker L, Gilson ND, Smith AJ. Participatory workplace interventions can reduce sedentary time for office workers—a randomised controlled trial. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e78957.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Barwais FA, Cuddihy TF. Empowering sedentary adults to reduce sedentary behavior and increase physical activity levels and energy expenditure: a pilot study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12:414–27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Koltyn KF, Crombie KM, Brellenthin AG, Leitzelar B, Ellingson LD, Renken J, et al. Intervening to reduce sedentary behavior in older adults—pilot results. Heal Promot Perspect. 2019;9:71–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Edwardson CL, Yates T, Biddle SJH, Davies MJ, Dunstan DW, Esliger DW, et al. Effectiveness of the Stand More AT (SMArT) Work intervention: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2018;363:k3870.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Li I, Mackey MG, Foley B, Pappas E, Edwards K, Chau JY, et al. Reducing office workers’ sitting time at work using sit-stand protocols: results from a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Occup Environ Med. 2017;59:543–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chau JY, Daley M, Dunn S, Srinivasan A, Do A, Bauman AE, et al. The effectiveness of sit-stand workstations for changing office workers’ sitting time: results from the Stand@Work randomized controlled trial pilot. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11:127.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Healy GN, Eakin EG, Owen N, Lamontagne AD, Moodie M, Winkler EAH, et al. A cluster randomized controlled trial to reduce office workers’ sitting time: effect on activity outcomes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016;48:1787–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Júdice PB, Hamilton MT, Sardinha LB, Silva AM. Randomized controlled pilot of an intervention to reduce and break-up overweight/obese adults’ overall sitting-time. Trials. 2015;16:490.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Brakenridge CL, Fjeldsoe BS, Young DC, Winkler EAH, Dunstan DW, Straker LM, et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of organisational-level strategies with or without an activity tracker to reduce office workers’ sitting time: a cluster-randomised trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016;13:115.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Tobin R, Leavy J, Jancey J. Uprising: An examination of sit-stand workstations, mental health and work ability in sedentary office workers, in Western Australia. Work. 2016;55:359–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Neuhaus M, Healy GN, Dunstan DW, Owen N, Eakin EG. Workplace sitting and height-adjustable workstations: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2014;46:30–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Arrogi A, Bogaerts A, Seghers J, Devloo K, Vanden Abeele V, Geurts L, et al. Evaluation of stAPP: a smartphone-based intervention to reduce prolonged sitting among Belgian adults. Health Promot Int. 2019;34:16–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kerr J, Takemoto M, Bolling K, Atkin A, Carlson J, Rosenberg D, et al. Two-arm randomized pilot intervention trial to decrease sitting time and increase sit-to-stand transitions in working and non-working older adults. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0145427.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Larouche ML, Mullane SL, Toledo MJL, Pereira MA, Huberty JL, Ainsworth BE, et al. Using point-of-choice prompts to reduce sedentary behavior in sit-stand workstation users. Front public Heal. 2018;6:323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Dewitt S, Hall J, Smith L, Buckley JP, Biddle SJH, Mansfield L, et al. Office workers’ experiences of attempts to reduce sitting-time: an exploratory, mixed-methods uncontrolled intervention pilot study. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:819.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Danquah IH, Kloster S, Holtermann A, Aadahl M, Bauman A, Ersbøll AK, et al. Take a Stand!-a multi-component intervention aimed at reducing sitting time among office workers-a cluster randomized trial. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46:128–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Fitzsimons CF, Kirk A, Baker G, Michie F, Kane C, Mutrie N. Using an individualised consultation and activPAL™ feedback to reduce sedentary time in older Scottish adults: results of a feasibility and pilot study. Prev Med (Baltim). 2013;57:718–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lewis LK, Rowlands AV, Gardiner PA, Standage M, English C, Olds T. Small steps: preliminary effectiveness and feasibility of an incremental goal-setting intervention to reduce sitting time in older adults. Maturitas. 2016;85:64–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Kozey-Keadle S, Libertine A, Staudenmayer J, Freedson P. The feasibility of reducing and measuring sedentary time among overweight, non-exercising office workers. J Obes. 2012;2012:282303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Healy GN, Eakin EG, Lamontagne AD, Owen N, Winkler EAH, Wiesner G, et al. Reducing sitting time in office workers: short-term efficacy of a multicomponent intervention. Prev Med (Baltim). 2013;57:43–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. MacEwen BT, Saunders TJ, MacDonald DJ, Burr JF. Sit-stand desks to reduce workplace sitting time in office workers with abdominal obesity: a randomized controlled trial. J Phys Act Health. 2017;14:710–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Alkhajah TA, Reeves MM, Eakin EG, Winkler EAH, Owen N, Healy GN. Sit-stand workstations: a pilot intervention to reduce office sitting time. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43:298–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Nguyen P, Le LK-D, Nguyen D, Gao L, Dunstan DW, Moodie M. The effectiveness of sedentary behaviour interventions on sitting time and screen time in children and adults: an umbrella review of systematic reviews. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020;17:117.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Clemes SA, O'Connell SE, Edwardson CL. Office workers' objectively measured sedentary behavior and physical activity during and outside working hours. J Occup Environ Med. 2014;56:298–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Blackburn NE, Wilson JJ, McMullan II, Caserotti P, Giné-Garriga M, Wirth K, et al. The effectiveness and complexity of interventions targeting sedentary behaviour across the lifespan: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020;17:1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The assistance of Dr Tricia Kelly (University of Southern Queensland) with the literature searches is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Víctor Segura-Jiménez

  2. Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria ibs.GRANADA, Avda. de Madrid, 15, 18012, Granada, Spain

    Víctor Segura-Jiménez

  3. GALENO Research Group, Department of Physical Education, Faculty of Education Sciences, University of Cádiz, Cádiz, Spain

    Víctor Segura-Jiménez

  4. Biomedical Research and Innovation Institute of Cádiz (INiBICA) Research Unit, Puerta del Mar University Hospital, Cádiz, Spain

    Víctor Segura-Jiménez

  5. Centre for Health Research, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia

    Stuart J. H. Biddle, Katrien De Cocker & Shahjahan Khan

  6. Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Katrien De Cocker

  7. School of Sciences, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia

    Shahjahan Khan

  8. Asian University of Bangladesh, Ashulia, Dhaka, Bangladesh

    Shahjahan Khan

  9. Department of Physical Education and Sports, Faculty of Sports Science, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Blanca Gavilán-Carrera

Authors
  1. Víctor Segura-Jiménez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stuart J. H. Biddle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katrien De Cocker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shahjahan Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Blanca Gavilán-Carrera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Víctor Segura-Jiménez.

Ethics declarations

Funding

VS-J was funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III through the fellowship CP20/00178 co-funded by European Social Fund and has received funding from the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities with the José Castillejo grant no. CAS19/00395. BG-C has received funding from the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities with the FPU-fellow Mobility Grant no. EST 18/00486.

Conflicts of interest

Víctor Segura-Jiménez, Stuart Biddle, Katrien De Cocker, Shahjahan Khan, and Blanca Gavilán-Carrera have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review.

Availability of data and material

Data were obtained from previously published scientific research and can be obtained from research studies referenced in the current meta-analysis.

Ethics approval

This study did not require research ethics approval because it did not involve human participants or animal subjects.

Consent

Not applicable.

Author contributions

VSJ participated in the conceptualization of the study and contributed to data collection, data analysis, draft preparation, interpretations of the results, writing, review, and editing. BGC contributed to the conceptualization of the study, data collection, interpretation of the results, writing, review, and editing. SJHB and KDC contributed to the conceptualization of the study, interpretation of the results, review, and editing. SK contributed to data analysis, interpretation of the results, and review. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript and agree with the order of presentation of the authors.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Table S1. Prisma checklist (PDF 69 kb)

Supplementary file2 (PDF 450 kb)

Supplementary file3 (PDF 125 kb)

Supplementary file4 (PDF 195 kb)

40279_2022_1682_MOESM5_ESM.jpeg

Fig. S1. Funnel plots to assess publication bias in effects of sedentary behaviour intervention on worksite (a) and whole day (b) sedentary time measured by accelerometry in post vs. pre analysis included in the meta-analysis. Each white point represents a meta-analysed group. Diagonal lines represent pseudo-95% confidence intervals. In reference of Y axis, studies located at the lower part of the graph have a higher standard error (a lower weight in the pooled analysis). The vertical line represents the calculated estimate effect of sedentary time

40279_2022_1682_MOESM6_ESM.jpeg

Fig. S2. Funnel plots to assess publication bias in effects of sedentary behaviour intervention on worksite (a) and whole day (b) light physical activity (LPA) measured by accelerometry in post vs. pre analysis included in the meta-analysis. Each white point represents a meta-analysed group. Diagonal lines represent pseudo-95% confidence intervals. In reference of Y axis, studies located at the lower part of the graph have a higher standard error (a lower weight in the pooled analysis). The vertical line represents the calculated estimate effect of LPA

40279_2022_1682_MOESM7_ESM.jpg

Fig. S3. Funnel plots to assess publication bias in effects of sedentary behaviour intervention on worksite (a) and whole day (b) moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) measured by accelerometry in post vs. pre analysis included in the meta-analysis. Each white point represents a meta-analysed group. Diagonal lines represent pseudo-95% confidence intervals. In reference of Y axis, studies located at the lower part of the graph have a higher standard error (a lower weight in the pooled analysis). The vertical line represents the calculated estimate effect of MVPA

40279_2022_1682_MOESM8_ESM.jpg

Fig. S4. Funnel plots to assess publication bias in effects of sedentary behaviour intervention on worksite (a) and whole day (b) sedentary time measured by activPAL accelerometer in post vs. pre analysis included in the meta-analysis. Each white point represents a meta-analysed group. Diagonal lines represent pseudo-95% confidence intervals. In reference of Y axis, studies located at the lower part of the graph have a higher standard error (a lower weight in the pooled analysis). The vertical line represents the calculated estimate effect of sedentary time

40279_2022_1682_MOESM9_ESM.jpg

Fig. S5. Funnel plots to assess publication bias in effects of sedentary behaviour intervention on worksite (a) and whole day (b) standing time measured by activPAL accelerometer in post vs. pre analysis included in the meta-analysis. Each white point represents a meta-analysed group. Diagonal lines represent pseudo-95% confidence intervals. In reference of Y axis, studies located at the lower part of the graph have a higher standard error (a lower weight in the pooled analysis). The vertical line represents the calculated estimate effect of standing time

40279_2022_1682_MOESM10_ESM.jpg

Fig. S6. Funnel plots to assess publication bias in effects of sedentary behaviour intervention on worksite (a) and whole day (b) stepping time measured by activPAL accelerometer in post vs. pre analysis included in the meta-analysis. Each white point represents a meta-analysed group. Diagonal lines represent pseudo-95% confidence intervals. In reference of Y axis, studies located at the lower part of the graph have a higher standard error (a lower weight in the pooled analysis). The vertical line represents the calculated estimate effect of stepping time

40279_2022_1682_MOESM11_ESM.jpg

Fig. S7. Funnel plots to assess publication bias in effects of sedentary behaviour intervention on worksite (a) and whole day (b) sedentary time measured by activPAL accelerometer in exercise vs. control analysis included in the meta-analysis. Each white point represents a meta-analysed group. Diagonal lines represent pseudo-95% confidence intervals. In reference of Y axis, studies located at the lower part of the graph have a higher standard error (a lower weight in the pooled analysis). The vertical line represents the calculated estimate effect of sedentary time

40279_2022_1682_MOESM12_ESM.jpg

Fig. S8. Funnel plots to assess publication bias in effects of sedentary behaviour intervention on worksite (a) and whole day (b) standing time measured by activPAL accelerometer in exercise vs. control analysis included in the meta-analysis. Each white point represents a meta-analysed group. Diagonal lines represent pseudo-95% confidence intervals. In reference of Y axis, studies located at the lower part of the graph have a higher standard error (a lower weight in the pooled analysis). The vertical line represents the calculated estimate effect of standing time

40279_2022_1682_MOESM13_ESM.jpg

Fig. S9. Funnel plots to assess publication bias in effects of sedentary behaviour intervention on worksite (a) and whole day (b) stepping time measured by activPAL accelerometer in exercise vs. control analysis included in the meta-analysis. Each white point represents a meta-analysed group. Diagonal lines represent pseudo-95% confidence intervals. In reference of Y axis, studies located at the lower part of the graph have a higher standard error (a lower weight in the pooled analysis). The vertical line represents the calculated estimate effect of stepping time

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Segura-Jiménez, V., Biddle, S.J.H., De Cocker, K. et al. Where Does the Time Go? Displacement of Device-Measured Sedentary Time in Effective Sedentary Behaviour Interventions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med 52, 2177–2207 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01682-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01682-3

Search

Navigation