White 2017.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: Randomised controlled trial Study grouping: Intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour and control (fact sheet about physical activity) Assessment: Measure of sedentary time using the self‐reported MOST and IPAQ questionnaires Operational definition of sedentary time: Sum of time spent sitting as assessed by MOST and IPAQ Randomisation method: After consent, participants were randomised by an independent trial administrator using a computer‐generated 1:1 block randomisation schedule.
Participants	Baseline characteristics Intervention Age: 68.00 (4.05) years Gender: 40% male Race: 96% white Education: 30% educated at university level N = 48 Control Age: 68.61 (3.52) years Gender: 43% male Race: 98% white Education: 41% educated at university level N = 48 Inclusion criteria: Aged >= 65 years. Self‐reported retired and sedentary (>= 6 hours sitting (leisure) per day). Self‐reported <= 30 consecutive minutes of leisure time physical activity of >= 3 METs Exclusion criteria: People with physical impairments precluding light‐intensity physical activity, lacking capacity to provide informed consent, living in the same household as another study participant, or unable to speak or read English fluently
Interventions	The intervention consisted of a printed A5‐sized information booklet outlining the health impact of sedentary behaviour and physical activity and 15 tips on reducing sedentary behaviour and forming physical activity habits, with 8 printed "tick‐sheets" for participants to record daily adherence to tips for both intervention and data collection purposes.
Outcomes	Primary outcomes Sedentary time (self‐reported; MOST) Outcome type: Continuous outcome Reporting: Fully reported Unit of measure: min/day Direction: Lower is better Notes: Also available using IPAQ, but fewer responses
Identification	Sponsorship source: The project is supported by a grant from the National Prevention Research Initiative. Country: UK Setting: Community Comments: Pilot RCT to look at the effect of habit formation on SB intervention. Show change in SB in both intervention and control group (albeit control group still gets education about SB), but no group effect Authors name: Isabelle White Institution: King's College London Email: benjamin.gardner@kcl.ac.uk Address: Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation performed by independent administrator using a computer‐generated sequence on 1:1 schedule.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated randomisation, and independent staff performing the randomisation
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Both groups received printed materials and were recruited in 4 geographic clusters; participants were blinded to allocation.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Self‐reported measures, and assessors not blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Attrition well described, intention‐to‐treat analysis with baseline data replacement for missing data.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Indicates that other measures were collected but not reported
Other bias	Low risk	None

BMI: body mass index

HDL: high‐density lipoprotein

IPAQ: International Physical Activity Questionnaire

LDL: low‐density lipoprotein

METs: metabolic equivalents

MOST: Measure of Older Adults Sedentary Time

MVPA: moderate‐ to vigorous‐intensity physical activity

RCT: randomised controlled trial