ObjectivesUK exercise referral schemes (ERSs) have been criticised for focusing too much on exercise prescription and not enough on sustainable physical activity (PA) behaviour change. Previously, a theoretically grounded intervention (coproduced PA referral scheme, Co-PARS) was coproduced to support long-term PA behaviour change in individuals with health conditions. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of Co-PARS compared with a usual care ERS and no treatment for increasing cardiorespiratory fitness.DesignA three-arm quasi-experimental trial.SettingTwo leisure centres providing (1) Co-PARS, (2) usual exercise referral care and one no-treatment control.Participants68 adults with lifestyle-related health conditions (eg, cardiovascular, diabetes, depression) were recruited to co-PARS, usual care or no treatment.Intervention16-weeks of PA behaviour change support delivered at 4, 8, 12 and 18 weeks, in addition to the usual care 12-week leisure centre access.Outcome measuresCardiorespiratory fitness, vascular health, PA and mental well-being were measured at baseline, 12 weeks and 6 months (PA and mental well-being only). Fitness centre engagement (co-PARS and usual care) and behaviour change consultation attendance (co-PARS) were assessed. Following an intention-to-treat approach, repeated-measures linear mixed models were used to explore intervention effects.ResultsSignificant improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness (p=0.002) and vascular health (p=0.002) were found in co-PARS compared with usual care and no-treatment at 12 weeks. No significant changes in PA or well-being at 12 weeks or 6 months were noted. Intervention engagement was higher in co-PARS than usual care, though this was not statistically significant.ConclusionA coproduced PA behaviour change intervention led to promising improvements in cardiorespiratory and vascular health at 12 weeks, despite no effect for PA levels at 12 weeks or 6 months.Trial registration numberNCT03490747.

The burden of noncommunicable diseases (NCD) on health systems worldwide is substantial. Physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour are major risk factors for NCD.Previous attempts to understand the value for money of preventative interventions targeting physically inactive individuals have proved to be challenging due to key methodological challenges associated with the conduct of economic evaluations in public health. A systematic review was carried out across six databases (Medline, SPORTSDiscus, EconLit, PsychINFO, NHS EED, HTA) along with supplementary searches. The review examines how economic evaluations published between 2009-March 2017 have addressed methodological challenges with the aim of bringing to light examples of good practice for future studies. Fifteen economic evaluations from four high-income countries were retrieved; there is a dearth of studies targeting sedentary behaviour as an independent risk factor from physical activity. Comparability of studies from the healthcare and societal perspectives were limited due to analysts' choice in cost categories, valuation technique and time horizon 2 differing substantially. The scarcity of and inconsistencies across economic evaluations for these two behaviours have exposed a mismatch between calls for more preventative action to tackle NCD and the lack of information available on how resources may be optimally allocated in practice. Consequently, this paper offers a table of recommendations on how future studies can be improved.

Sitting for prolonged periods of time impairs people’s health. Prior research has mainly investigated sitting behavior on an aggregate level, for example, by analyzing total sitting time per day. By contrast, taking a dynamic approach, here we conceptualize sitting behavior as a continuous chain of sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit transitions. We use multilevel time-to-event analysis to analyze the timing of these transitions. We analyze ∼30,000 objectively measured posture transitions from 156 people during work time. Results indicate that the temporal dynamics of sit-to-stand transitions differ from stand-to-sit transitions, and that people are quicker to switch postures later in the workday, and quicker to stand up after having been more active in the recent hours. We found no evidence for associations with physical fitness. Altogether, these findings provide insights into the origins of people’s stand-up and sit-down decisions, show that sitting behavior is fundamentally different from exercise behavior, and provide pointers for the development of interventions.

The extent that health professionals suspect and address addiction to medicines in primary care: Findings from a survey in Northwest England.http://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/6128/ Article LJMU has developed LJMU Research Online for users to access the research output of the University more effectively.