Roderick Wondergem

Objective: High amounts of sedentary behavior increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. This study aimed to determine the preliminary effectiveness and feasibility of the RISE intervention to support community-dwelling people with stroke, who are highly sedentary, to reduce and interrupt sedentary time. Additionally, the added value of including participatory support was determined. Methods: A randomized, multiple-baseline study was conducted including 14 participants. All received the RISE intervention, a 15-week blended behavioral intervention in which a primary care physiotherapist provided personalized coaching in the home setting by using behavior-change techniques and the RISE eCoaching system, including an activity monitor and app to provide real time feedback. Half of the participants (randomly allocated) received participatory support from someone from their social network (e.g., partner or close friend) who joined them in the intervention. Preliminary effectiveness was determined with significant changes in total sedentary time and fragmentation (interruption) of sedentary time using a randomization test. Feasibility was assessed by adherence with the intervention protocol, safety, and satisfaction with the intervention. Results: Participants significantly reduced total sedentary time (p = 0.01) by 1.3 h on average and increased their fragmentation (p < 0.01). Subgroup analyses showed significant improvements in both outcomes only in the group with participatory support. Thirteen (92.9%) participants completed the intervention, no related adverse events occurred, and the reported participant satisfaction was sufficient. Conclusions: The RISE intervention appears promising to support people with stroke who are highly sedentary to reduce and interrupt their sedentary time. Participatory support appears to contribute to greater results. Trial registration: ISRCTN international trial registry, 10694741.

Objective To develop supplementary knowledge and tools to support the application of motor learning in community-based physiotherapy of geriatric individuals and evaluate physiotherapists’ experiences of the developed knowledge and tools. Design A prospective case study comprised of two phases: 1) a user-centered design, and 2) a process evaluation. Setting Community-based physiotherapy practices. Participants Five physiotherapists were included for the user-centered design and another eight for the process evaluation. Making a total of thirteen participating physiotherapists during this study. Intervention Not applicable. Main outcome measures To evaluate the use of the physiotherapists with the extended framework a biweekly monitor was administered. To evaluate the experience of the physiotherapists with the extended framework three digital questionnaires were administered, and a midterm and final in-person evaluation were organized. Results The user-centered design resulted in a card deck and website with different layers of practical examples and theoretical information. Most of the participating physiotherapists (n = 13) barely used the extended framework during the evaluation period. Commonly reported reasons for not using the extended framework included a lack of time as well as the material’s not fitting into the physiotherapists’ daily routines. They reported, however, that the extended framework increased their motor-learning knowledge and confidence. Some motor-learning strategies were applied much more frequently than others in daily practice. The underlying reasoning regarding the application of some strategies over others varied widely. Conclusion The results indicate that physiotherapists felt unambiguous regarding the extended framework. The time and energy cost to breaking one’s own routines might have outweighed the potential benefits. Future research should aim to determine whether the extended framework applies similarly in different settings.

To identify Capabilities, Opportunities, and Motivational factors influencing movement behaviour throughout the day in people with stroke who are highly sedentary and inactive to enable intervention development. A qualitative study was conducted using semistructured interviews with people with stroke. The interview guide was based on the Capabilities, Opportunities, and Motivation Behavioural model. Eleven interviews were conducted. Participants reported a lack of knowledge regarding healthy movement behaviour patterns, a lack of insight into their own movement behaviour, and some physical and cognitive limitations to engage in certain physical activities. Several social and environmental elements affecting movement behaviours were mentioned, their impact on movement behaviour varied among participants. Movement behaviour was mostly driven by habits and daily routine, without conscious regulation. Our findings show that people with stroke are unaware of their own movement behaviour or of the consequences of these behaviours on health. Movement behaviour is, for the most part, based on daily routine and personal habits. This indicates the need for a behaviour change intervention. Such interventions will need to include providing information about healthy movement behaviour, feedback on individual's movement behaviour and individualized support, taking into account the social and environmental context and personal capabilities.

Funding Acknowledgements: Type of funding sources: Foundation. Main funding source(s): Dutch Heart Foundation. Background: High levels of time spent sedentary are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality, even after accounting for traditional risk factors. A sedentary lifestyle is highly prevalent among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Purpose: This clinical trial aimed to determine whether a multicomponent, hybrid (center- and home-based), sedentary behaviour change intervention as a personalized secondary prevention strategy (SIT LESS) reduces daily sedentary time among patients with CAD participating in cardiac rehabilitation. Methods: Patients were randomised to usual care (n=104) or SIT LESS (n=108). Both groups received a comprehensive 12-week centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programme with face-to-face consultations and supervised exercise sessions, whereas SIT LESS participants additionally received a 12-week, nurse-delivered, hybrid behaviour change intervention in combination with an activity tracker connected to a smartphone application. Primary outcome was the change in objectively measured sedentary time between pre- to post-rehabilitation. Results: Patients (77% male) were 63±10 years and primarily diagnosed with myocardial infarction (78%). Sedentary time decreased in SIT LESS (−1.6 [−2.1 to −1.1] hours/day) and controls (−1.2 [ ─1.7 to −0.8]), but between group differences did not reach statistical significance (─0.4 [─1.0 to 0.3]) hours/day, Central Figure). The post-rehabilitation proportion of patients with a sedentary time above the upper limit of normal (≥9.5 hours/day) was significantly lower in SIT LESS versus controls (48% versus 72%, baseline-adjusted odds-ratio 0.4 (0.2-0.8)). No differences were observed in the other predefined secondary outcomes. Conclusions: Among patients with coronary artery disease participating in cardiac rehabilitation, SIT LESS did not induce significantly greater reductions in sedentary time compared to controls, but delivery was feasible and a reduced odds of a sedentary time ≥9.5 hours/day was observed.

Background: A high sedentary time is associated with increased mortality risk. Previous studies indicate that replacement of sedentary time with light- and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity attenuates the risk for adverse outcomes and improves cardiovascular risk factors. Patients with cardiovascular disease are more sedentary compared to the general population, while daily time spent sedentary remains high following contemporary cardiac rehabilitation programmes. This clinical trial investigated the effectiveness of a sedentary behaviour intervention as a personalised secondary prevention strategy (SIT LESS) on changes in sedentary time among patients with coronary artery disease participating in cardiac rehabilitation.Methods: Patients were randomised to usual care (n = 104) or SIT LESS (n = 108). Both groups received a comprehensive 12-week centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programme with face-to-face consultations and supervised exercise sessions, whereas SIT LESS participants additionally received a 12-week, nurse-delivered, hybrid behaviour change intervention in combination with a pocket-worn activity tracker connected to a smartphone application to continuously monitor sedentary time. Primary outcome was the change in device-based sedentary time between pre- to post-rehabilitation. Changes in sedentary time characteristics (prevalence of prolonged sedentary bouts and proportion of patients with sedentary time ≥ 9.5 h/day); time spent in light-intensity and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity; step count; quality of life; competencies for self-management; and cardiovascular risk score were assessed as secondary outcomes.Results: Patients (77% male) were 63 ± 10 years and primarily diagnosed with myocardial infarction (78%). Sedentary time decreased in SIT LESS (− 1.6 [− 2.1 to − 1.1] hours/day) and controls (− 1.2 [ ─1.7 to − 0.8]), but between group differences did not reach statistical significance (─0.4 [─1.0 to 0.3]) hours/day). The post-rehabilitation proportion of patients with a sedentary time above the upper limit of normal (≥ 9.5 h/day) was significantly lower in SIT LESSversuscontrols (48%versus72%, baseline-adjusted odds-ratio 0.4 (0.2–0.8)). No differences were observed in the other predefined secondary outcomes.Conclusions: Among patients with coronary artery disease participating in cardiac rehabilitation, SIT LESS did not induce significantly greater reductions in sedentary time compared to controls, but delivery was feasible and a reduced odds of a sedentary time ≥ 9.5 h/day was observed.Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register: NL9263.Graphical Outcomes of the SIT LESS trial: changes in device-based sedentary time from pre-to post-cardiac rehabilitation (control group) and cardiac rehabilitation + SIT LESS (intervention group). SIT LESS reduced the odds of patients having a sedentary time >9.5 hours/day (upper limit of normal), although the absolute decrease in sedentary time did not significantly differ from controls. SIT LESS appears to be feasible, acceptable and potentially beneficial, but a larger cluster randomised trial is warranted to provide a more accurate estimate of its effects on sedentary time and clinical outcomes. CR: cardiac rehabilitation.

(1) To investigate the differences in the course of participation up to one year after stroke between distinct movement behavior patterns identified directly after discharge to the home setting, an...

Background and purpose: Deterioration of physical functioning after stroke in the long term is regarded as a major problem. Currently, the relationship between “peoples'” movement behavior patterns (the composition of sedentary behavior and physical activity during waking hours) directly after stroke and the development of physical functioning over time is unknown. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to investigate (1) the course of physical functioning within the first two years after returning home after stroke, and (2) the association between physical functioning and baseline movement behavior patterns. Method: In the longitudinal RISE cohort study, 200 persons with a first-ever stroke discharged to the home-setting were included. Participants’ physical functioning was assessed within three weeks, at six months, and one and two years after discharge using the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) 3.0 subscale physical and the five-meter walk test (5MWT). Three distinct movement behavior patterns were identified in a previous study at baseline and were used in the current study: (1) sedentary exercisers (sufficiently active and 64% of waking hours sedentary) , (2) sedentary movers’ (inactive and 63% of waking hours sedentary) , and (3) sedentary prolongers (inactive and >78% of waking hours sedentary accumulated in long prolonged bouts) . The association between movement behavior patterns and the course of physical functioning was determined using longitudinal generalized estimating equations analyses. Results: Overall participants’ physical functioning increased between discharge and six months and declined from six months up to two years. Physical functioning remained stable during the first two years after stroke in sedentary exercisers. Physical functioning improved during the first six months after discharge in sedentary movers and sedentary prolongers and deteriorated in the following six months. Only physical functioning (SIS) of sedentary prolongers further declined from one up to two years. A similar pattern was observed in the 5MWT. Conclusion: Movement behavior patterns identified directly after returning home in people with stroke are associated with and are predictive of the course of physical functioning. Highly sedentary and inactive people with stroke have unfavorable outcomes over time than individuals with higher amounts of physical activity.