Research AppraisalSystematic Review

Comparison of the effects of eHealth-delivered sedentary breaks versus physical activity promotion interventions on sedentary time: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ openChen, Siqing, Nie, Xiaofei, Giovannucci, Edward et al.16 Apr 2026DOI

Clinical Snapshot

80CEBM
Evidence: ModerateSystematic Review

PICO Framework

P — PopulationAdults receiving eHealth interventions for sedentary behaviour modification
I — InterventioneHealth-delivered sedentary break interventions (frequent interruptions of sitting)
C — ComparatoreHealth-delivered physical activity promotion interventions (structured activity sessions)
O — OutcomesPrimary: sedentary time (objective/self-reported); Secondary: cardiometabolic markers, fatigue, well-being

Bottom Line

This well-designed protocol addresses a clinically important question comparing two dominant eHealth strategies for reducing sedentary behaviour. The comprehensive methodology follows international standards with PROSPERO registration and PRISMA-P compliance. The planned extensive subgroup analyses will provide valuable insights into which intervention approach works best for different populations and delivery contexts. However, the protocol has limitations including language restrictions and lack of grey literature searching. The research question is highly relevant to contemporary healthcare delivery, particularly given the expansion of digital health interventions and growing recognition of sedentary behaviour as an independent health risk factor. Once completed, this review could inform evidence-based recommendations for clinicians and public health practitioners designing sedentary behaviour interventions.

Evidence: Moderate

Key Findings

  • P Value: Not applicable - protocol paper

  • Effect Size: Not applicable - protocol paper

  • Primary Outcome: Sedentary time reduction (objective measurement or self-report)

  • Nnt Or Sensitivity: Not applicable - protocol paper

  • Confidence Interval: Not applicable - protocol paper

Clinical Application

High feasibility given focus on scalable eHealth interventions suitable for widespread implementation Highly relevant to Australian digital health initiatives and chronic disease prevention strategies, aligning with national physical activity guidelines and telehealth expansion Adults seeking to reduce sedentary behaviour through digital health interventions

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Prolonged sedentary behaviour (SB) is an independent risk factor for adverse health outcomes, with current WHO guidelines emphasising both increased physical activity (PA) and reduced sitting time. While electronic health (eHealth) interventions offer scalable solutions, the comparative effectiveness of two dominant strategies: sedentary break interventions (frequent interruptions of sitting) versus PA promotion (structured activity sessions) remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol aims to compare the effectiveness of interventions targeting breaks in SB versus increased PA in reducing sedentary time through meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing either intervention to a control condition, while exploring key moderating factors including participant characteristics, intervention type, duration, eHealth delivery mode, theoretical basis, use of behaviour change techniques (BCTs), PA intensity and SB frequency. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. A comprehensive search will be conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library from inception to 31 July 2025, with language restrictions limited to English and Chinese publications. RCTs comparing eHealth-delivered interventions promoting sedentary breaks with those increasing PA in adults will be included. The primary outcome is sedentary time (objectively measured or self-reported), and secondary outcomes include health outcomes such as cardiometabolic markers, fatigue and well-being. Two reviewers (SC and XN) will independently screen studies, extract data and assess risk of bias using validated tools. Meta-analyses will be performed if sufficient homogeneous data are available, comparing changes in sedentary time. Subgroup analyses will explore effects by participant characteristics including gender (male vs female), age groups (<60 vs ≥60 years), intervention type (sedentary breaks vs PA), duration (short-term ≤3 months vs medium-term >3 to <6 months vs long-term ≥6 months), eHealth platform/delivery mode (eg, smartphone apps vs websites vs wearable device prompts vs text messages), theoretical basis (eg, theory-driven interventions vs non-theoretical interventions), use of BCTs (eg, interventions incorporating BCTs vs interventions without BCTs), SB break frequency (eg, every 30 min vs every 60 min) and PA promotion intensity (eg, light vs moderate vs vigorous). A narrative synthesis will be conducted for studies unsuitable for quantitative analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as this study involves secondary analysis of published data. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251042994.

References

  1. 1.Chen, S., Nie, X., Giovannucci, E., & Yang, L. (2026). Comparison of the effects of eHealth-delivered sedentary breaks versus physical activity promotion interventions on sedentary time: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2025-106815
Share:XLinkedIn

This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service