Using the Behavior Change Wheel to Understand University Students’ Prolonged Sitting Time and Identify Potential Intervention Strategies

Abstract

Background

Several national public health guidelines recommend individuals to minimize time spent in prolonged, continuous periods of sitting. Developing effective interventions to break up sitting, however, requires in-depth understanding of the behavior as well as identification of the key elements that need to be targeted to achieve change. This qualitative study focused on university students—a highly sedentary group—with the aim of the following: (i) exploring the factors influencing prolonged sitting time in this population; and (ii) identifying potential avenues for future intervention, based on the Behavior Change Wheel framework.

Method

Eighteen ambulatory undergraduate students participated in semi-structured one-on-one interviews, using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behavior (COM-B) model and the complementary Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) as the theoretical framework. Data were analyzed using a directed content analysis approach, followed by inductive thematic analysis.

Results

All COM-B components and eight TDF domains were identified as relevant for influencing the target behavior.

Conclusion

Findings suggest that interventions and policies aimed at reducing prolonged sitting time in university students should (i) raise awareness about negative health implications; (ii) address productivity concerns; (iii) provide training in behavioral self-regulation; (iv) use external reminders; (v) implement habit formation techniques; and (vi) promote social acceptability for breaking up sitting.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    Tremblay MS, Aubert S, Barnes JD, et al. Sedentary behavior research network (SBRN) terminology consensus project process and outcome. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14:75.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Biswas A, Oh PI, Faulkner GE, Bajaj RR, Silver MA, Mitchell MS, et al. Sedentary time and its association with risk for disease incidence, mortality, and hospitalization in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:123–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Patterson R, McNamara E, Tainio M, de Sá TH, Smith AD, Sharp SJ, et al. Sedentary behaviour and risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality, and incident type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and dose response meta-analysis. Eur J Epidemiol. 2018;33:811–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-018-0380-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Wilmot EG, Edwardson CL, Achana FA, Davies MJ, Gorely T, Gray LJ, et al. Sedentary time in adults and the association with diabetes, cardiovascular disease and death: systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetologia. 2012;55:2895–905.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Zhai L, Zhang Y, Zhang D. Sedentary behaviour and the risk of depression: a meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49:705–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Thorp AA, Owen N, Neuhaus M, Dunstan DW. Sedentary behaviors and subsequent health outcomes in adults: a systematic review of longitudinal studies, 1996–2011. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41:207–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Ekelund U, Steene-Johannessen J, Brown WJ, Fagerland MW, Owen N, Powell KE, et al. Does physical activity attenuate, or even eliminate, the detrimental association of sitting time with mortality? A harmonised meta-analysis of data from more than 1 million men and women. Lancet. 2016;388:1302–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Cotten E, Prapavessis H. Increasing nonsedentary behaviors in university students using text messages: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth. 2016;4:e99. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.5411.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Castro O, Bennie J, Vergeer I, Bosselut G, Biddle SHJ. How sedentary are university students? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Sci. 2020;21:332–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Fountaine CJ, Liguori GA, Mozumdar A, Schuna JM. Physical activity and screen time sedentary behaviors in college students. Int J Exerc Sci. 2011;4:3.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Farinola MG, Bazán NE. Sedentary behavior and physical activity in university students: a pilot study. Rev Argent Cardiol. 2011;79:8.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Moulin MS, Irwin JD. An assessment of sedentary time among undergraduate students at a Canadian university. Int J Exerc Sci. 2017;10:1116–29.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy people 2010: understanding and improving health. Washington, DC: US Government Printing; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Department of Health. Australia’s physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines for adults (18–64 years). Canberra: Australian Government, Department of Health; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Fuzeki E, Vogt L, Banzer W. German national physical activity recommendations for adults and older adults: methods, database and rationale. Gesundheitswesen. 2017;2:20–8.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Department of Health, Physical Activity, Health Improvement and Protection. UK chief medical officers’ physical activity guidelines. London: Department of Health, Physical Activity, Health Improvement and Protection; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Bellettiere J, LaMonte MJ, Evenson KR, et al. Sedentary behavior and cardiovascular disease in older women. Circulation. 2019;13:1036–46. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.035312.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Diaz KM, Howard VJ, Hutto B, Colabianchi N, Vena JE, Safford MM, et al. Patterns of sedentary behavior and mortality in US middle-aged and older adults: a national cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167:465–75.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Benatti FB, Ried-Larsen M. The effects of breaking up prolonged sitting time: a review of experimental studies. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015;47:2053–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Todd AI, Bennett AI, Chrisitie CJ. Physical implications of prolonged sitting in a confined posture: a literature review. J Ergo S Afr. 2007;19:7–21.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Bailey DP, Locke CD. Breaking up prolonged sitting with light-intensity walking improves postprandial glycemia, but breaking up sitting with standing does not. J Sci Med Sport. 2015;18:294–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Paing AC, McMillan KA, Kirk AF, Collier A, Hewitt A, Chastin SF. Dose–response between frequency of interruption of sedentary time and fasting glucose, the dawn phenomenon and night-time glucose in type 2 diabetes. Diab Med. 2019;36:376–82.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Dunstan DW, Howard B, Healy GN, Owen N. Too much sitting–a health hazard. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2012;97:368–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Felez-Nobrega M, Hillman CH, Dowd KP, Cirera E, Puig-Ribera A. ActivPAL™ determined sedentary behaviour, physical activity and academic achievement in college students. J Sports Sci. 2018;36:2311–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1451212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Cole JA, Tully MA, Cupples ME. ‘They should stay at their desk until the work’s done’: a qualitative study examining perceptions of sedentary behaviour in a desk-based occupational setting. BMC Res Notes. 2015;8:105. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1670-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    MacDonald B, Fitzsimons C, Niven A. Using the COM-B model of behaviour to understand sitting behaviour in UK office workers. Sport Exerc Psychol Rev. 2018;14:23.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Helton WS, Russell PN. Rest is best: the role of rest and task interruptions on vigilance. Cognition. 2015;134:165–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Young MS, Robinson S, Alberts P. Students pay attention! Combating the vigilance decrement to improve learning during lectures. Active Learn High Educ. 2009;10:41–55.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Wennberg P, Boraxbekk CJ, Wheeler M, Howard B, Dempsey PC, Lambert G, et al. Acute effects of breaking up prolonged sitting on fatigue and cognition: a pilot study. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e009630.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Michie S, Johnston M. Theories and techniques of behaviour change: developing a cumulative science of behaviour change. Health Psychol Rev. 2012;6:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2012.654964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Michie S, Atkins L, West R. The behaviour change wheel. A guide to designing interventions. London: Silverback Publishing; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Cane J, O'Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012;7:37.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Deliens T, Deforche B, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Clarys P. Determinants of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in university students: a qualitative study using focus group discussions. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:201.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Francis JJ, Johnston M, Robertson C, Glidewell L, Entwistle V, Eccles MP, et al. What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol Health. 2010;25:1229–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Atkins L, Francis J, Islam R, O’Connor D, Patey A, Ivers N, et al. A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implement Sci. 2017;12:77.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:1277–88.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Bhaskar R. A realist theory of science. London: Routledge; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Francis JJ, Stockton C, Eccles MP, Johnston M, Cuthbertson BH, Grimshaw JM, et al. Evidence-based selection of theories for designing behaviour change interventions: using methods based on theoretical construct domains to understand clinicians' blood transfusion behaviour. Br J Health Psychol. 2009;14:625–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Morse JM. Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qual Health Res. 2015;25:1212–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315588501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Alley SJ, Vandelanotte C, Duncan MJ, Short CE, Maher JP, Schoeppe S, et al. Should I sit or stand: likelihood of adherence to messages about reducing sitting time. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:871.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Smith L, Pedersen S, Cooley P. The effect of education on compliance to a workplace health and wellbeing intervention: closing the loop. Univ J Public Health. 2013;1:97.

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    De Cocker K, Veldeman C, De Bacquer D, et al. Acceptability and feasibility of potential intervention strategies for influencing sedentary time at work: focus group interviews in executives and employees. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12:22.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Mansfield L, Hall J, Smith L, Rasch M, Reeves E, Dewitt S, et al. Could you sit down please? A qualitative analysis of employees’ experiences of standing in normally-seated workplace meetings. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0198483. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198483.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Yeager DS, Dahl RE, Dweck CS. Why interventions to influence adolescent behavior often fail but could succeed. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018;13:101–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Stand-secretary in class (n.d.) https://gbiomed.kuleuven.be/english/biomedia/stand-secretary-in-class-1. Accessed 18 Sept 2019.

  48. 48.

    Gardner B. A review and analysis of the use of ‘habit’ in understanding, predicting and influencing health-related behaviour. Health Psychol Rev. 2015;9:277–95.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Matson TE, Renz AD, Takemoto ML, McClure JB, Rosenberg DE. Acceptability of a sitting reduction intervention for older adults with obesity. BMC Public Health. 2018;18:706.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Lally P, Wardle J, Gardner B. Experiences of habit formation: a qualitative study. Psychol Health Med. 2011;16:484–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Gardner B, Smith L, Lorencatto F, Hamer M, Biddle SHJ. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Sui W, Prapavessis H. Standing up for student health: an application of the health action process approach for reducing student sedentary behavior—randomised control pilot trial. Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2018;10:87–107.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all students who volunteered to participate in the study.

Funding

OC was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Scheme scholarship and fee offset program.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oscar Castro.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

ESM 1

(DOCX 37 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 15 kb)

ESM 3

(DOC 60 kb)

ESM 4

(DOCX 18 kb)

ESM 5

(DOCX 16 kb)

ESM 6

(DOCX 431 kb)

ESM 7

(DOCX 23 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Castro, O., Vergeer, I., Bennie, J. et al. Using the Behavior Change Wheel to Understand University Students’ Prolonged Sitting Time and Identify Potential Intervention Strategies. Int.J. Behav. Med. 28, 360–371 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-020-09926-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • College students
  • Sedentary behavior
  • Sedentary time
  • Intervention mapping
  • Implementation research