On 2016 Sep 12, Cicely Saunders Institute Journal Club commented:

The Cicely Saunders Institute journal club discussed this paper on Wednesday 7th September 2016.

We felt this is an important study that is opening the ‘black box’ of an intervention based on the habit formation model. The title itself stimulated discussion and reflection on the challenges of reducing sedentary behaviour.

We enjoyed discussing the development of the habit–based intervention for older adults and the protocol for the randomised controlled trial. The paper is presented as a study protocol, yet the first few pages actually describe the developmental stage of the intervention. We felt the development phase warranted being presented more fully in a separate paper. Questions arose in our discussion related to the nature of the adverse health consequences associated with sedentary behaviour and physical inactivity.

We commented on the pros and cons of publishing a protocol for a feasibility trial, including the need to publish amendments one year later. It was not clear how the behaviour change techniques utilised in the usual care fact sheet differed from those in the intervention booklet. Whilst we acknowledged there may be practical reasons for not presenting both the booklet and the control fact sheet in the protocol paper, we agreed that it would have been interesting to be able to see and compare these two documents.

We noted the authors acknowledgement of the difficulty of attributing a behaviour change effect to the habit formation elements in the booklet. We also discussed the possible contextual factors that might contribute to any effect and were interested in how the long term impact of habit-based interventions could be evaluated.

Commentary by Joanne Bayly and Roxana Vanderstay

On 2016 Sep 12, Cicely Saunders Institute Journal Club commented:

The Cicely Saunders Institute journal club discussed this paper on Wednesday 7th September 2016.

We felt this is an important study that is opening the ‘black box’ of an intervention based on the habit formation model. The title itself stimulated discussion and reflection on the challenges of reducing sedentary behaviour.

We enjoyed discussing the development of the habit–based intervention for older adults and the protocol for the randomised controlled trial. The paper is presented as a study protocol, yet the first few pages actually describe the developmental stage of the intervention. We felt the development phase warranted being presented more fully in a separate paper. Questions arose in our discussion related to the nature of the adverse health consequences associated with sedentary behaviour and physical inactivity.

We commented on the pros and cons of publishing a protocol for a feasibility trial, including the need to publish amendments one year later. It was not clear how the behaviour change techniques utilised in the usual care fact sheet differed from those in the intervention booklet. Whilst we acknowledged there may be practical reasons for not presenting both the booklet and the control fact sheet in the protocol paper, we agreed that it would have been interesting to be able to see and compare these two documents.

We noted the authors acknowledgement of the difficulty of attributing a behaviour change effect to the habit formation elements in the booklet. We also discussed the possible contextual factors that might contribute to any effect and were interested in how the long term impact of habit-based interventions could be evaluated.

Commentary by Joanne Bayly and Roxana Vanderstay