ReviewBMJ open2025
Understanding for whom, under which circumstances and how sedentary behaviour interventions for older adults work: a realist review.
Review in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring habit strength, reward value, and context stability of sedentary activities in older adults: An ecological momentary assessment study.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesReducing sedentary behaviour (SB) in older adults is a promising strategy to promote healthy ageing. However, to develop more effective interventions, more in-depth information is needed on how existing interventions work. The present realist review aims to identify the working mechanisms and contextual preconditions to guide the development of future interventions.
designA realist review was conducted following the iterative process of Pawson and Tilley and reported following the RAMESES publication standards. DATA SOURCES: Evidence was searched in four databases: EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus, and in the grey literature. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All study types and designs were included. Studies conducted in older adults with a mean age of 60 years or older, providing information on the context, mechanisms and/or outcomes of interventions aimed at the reduction of SB were eligible for inclusion and appraised for relevance and rigour. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: All data were coded by two independent reviewers. Sections that contained relevant information to refine, refute or confirm the initial programme theory were given a code. Based on these codes, context-mechanism-outcome configurations were made, and a final programme theory was developed.
resultsIn total, 58 studies, from 61 articles, were eligible. The review revealed three important contexts for changes in SB: the (1) motivation, (2) opportunities and (3) capabilities of older adults. Depending on the context, other behaviour change techniques should be used to trigger specific mechanisms and, in turn, reduce SB. Especially, the impact of the underlying automatic processes of SB on the effectiveness of SB interventions became clear. Existing interventions primarily focus on the reflective processes guiding SB, without taking into account that SB is often an automatic response that occurs unconsciously, with little reasoning.
conclusionsThe effectiveness of SB interventions in older adults highly depends on the context in which the interventions occur. In particular, the context of automatic motivation should receive more attention to break the ingrained habit of SB in older adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.