Background: This study compared the efficacy of two multi-component m-health interventions with a wait-list control group on body weight (primary outcome), and secondary outcomes of cardiovascular risk factors, lifestyle behaviours, and mental health. Methods: Three-arm randomised controlled trial (Enhanced: physical activity, diet, sleep, Traditional: physical activity, diet, Control) with assessments conducted at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Participants (n = 116) were overweight or obese adults aged 19–65 (M = 44.5 [SD = 10.5]). The 6-month intervention was delivered via a smartphone app providing educational materials, goal-setting, self-monitoring and feedback, and also included one face-to-face dietary consultation, a Fitbit and scales. The trial was prospectively registered and conducted between May 2017 and September 2018. Group differences on primary and secondary outcomes were examined between the Pooled Intervention groups (Pooled Intervention = Enhanced and Traditional) and Control groups, and then between Enhanced and Traditional groups. Results: Nineteen participants (16.4%) formally withdrew from the trial. Compared with the Control group, average body weight of the Pooled Intervention group did not differ at 6 (between-group difference = −0.92, (95% CI −3.33, 1.48)) or 12 months (0.00, (95% CI −2.62, 2.62)). Compared with the Control group, the Pooled Intervention group significantly increased resistance training (OR = 7.83, (95% CI 1.08, 56.63)) and reduced energy intake at 6 months (−1037.03, (−2028.84, −45.22)), and improved insomnia symptoms at 12 months (−2.59, (−4.79, −0.39)). Compared with the Traditional group, the Enhanced group had increased waist circumferences (2.69, (0.20, 5.18)) and sedentary time at 6 months (105.66, (30.83, 180.48)), and improved bed time variability at 12 months (−1.08, (−1.86, −0.29)). No other significant differences were observed between groups. Conclusions: Relative to Controls, the Pooled Intervention groups did not differ on body weight but improved resistance training, and reduced energy intake and insomnia symptom severity. No additional weight loss was apparent when targeting improvements in physical activity, diet and sleep in combination compared with physical activity and diet.

Poor health behaviors are prevalent in shift-workers, but few multiple health-behavior interventions consider their unique needs. This study aimed to (1) evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of an existing app-based intervention to improve physical activity, diet, and sleep quality in a shift-worker population, (2) estimate intervention effect in a four-week pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) (ACTRN12618001785291). Shift-workers (18–65 years old) were randomized to intervention (n = 20) or wait-list (n = 20) groups. Outcomes included recruitment, engagement, attrition, usefulness ratings, System Usability Scale (SUS), qualitative interviews, and estimation of treatment effect (minutes of physical activity, diet quality, and sleep quality) using mixed model analysis. Recruitment took one week. App-use at week four was 55% (11/20), 85% (34/40) completed the four-week follow-up questionnaire, and 20% (4/20) of the intervention group completed the qualitative interview. The intervention was rated as slightly to moderately useful by 76.9% (10/13) of participants on a five-point scale. The SUS score was 62.7 (12.7) out of 100. Diet quality improved for the intervention (4.5 points; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.1, 8.9; p = 0.047) vs. the wait-list group, but not physical activity or sleep quality. Qualitative interviews found that a more tailored intervention, more accessible information, and interactive features were desired. The intervention was feasible in terms of recruitment, but modifications to increase engagement are needed.

Background: Physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep are interrelated and may have a synergistic impact on health. This systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies aimed to evaluate the combined influence of different combinations of these behaviours on mortality risk and incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer, diabetes, and mental health.Methods: Four online databases were used to identify studies from database inception to May 2023. Prospective cohort studies that examined how different combinations of physical activity, sedentary and sleep behaviours were associated with mortality and incident cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and mental health in adults were included. Random effects meta-analyses using the Der Simonian and Laird method were conducted.Results: Assessment of 4583 records resulted in twelve studies being included. Studies were qualitatively summarised and a sub-group of studies (n = 5) were meta-analysed. The most frequent combination of behaviours was duration of leisure time physical activity and sleep (n = 9), with all-cause mortality (n = 16), CVD mortality (n = 9) and cancer mortality (n = 7) the most frequently examined outcomes. Meta-analysis revealed that relative to High physical activity & Mid sleep, High physical activity and Short sleep was not associated with risk of all-cause mortality (RR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.97, 1.14), however Low physical activity and Short Sleep (RR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.24, 1.63), Low physical activity and Mid Sleep (RR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.12, 1.52), High physical activity and Long Sleep (RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.01, 1.32), and Low physical activity and Long Sleep were associated with risk of all-cause mortality (RR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.21, 2.20).Conclusions: High levels of physical activity may offset all-cause mortality risks associated with short sleep duration. Low levels of physical activity combined with short sleep duration and any level of physical activity in combination with long sleep duration appear to increase mortality risk. Currently there is limited evidence regarding how dimensions of physical activity, sedentary and sleep behaviours other than duration (e.g., quality, timing, type) are associated with future health status.

This three-arm randomised controlled trial evaluated whether (1) a multi-component weight loss intervention targeting diet, physical activity (PA), and sleep was effective at improving dietary intake over six months and 12 months, compared with a control, and (2) the enhanced diet, PA, and sleep intervention was more effective at improving dietary intake than the traditional diet and PA intervention. A total of 116 adults (70% female, 44.5 years, BMI 31.7 kg/m²) were randomised to either traditional diet and PA intervention; enhanced diet, PA, and sleep intervention; or wait-list control. To examine between-group differences, intervention groups were pooled and compared with the control. Then, the two intervention groups were compared. At six months, the pooled intervention group consumed 1011 fewer kilojoules/day (95% CI −1922, −101), less sodium (−313.2 mg/day; 95% CI −591.3, −35.0), and higher %EI from fruit (+2.1%EI; 95% CI 0.1, 4.1) than the controls. There were no differences in intake between the enhanced and traditional groups at six months. At 12 months, the pooled intervention and control groups reported no significant differences. However, compared to the traditional group, the enhanced reported higher %EI from nutrient-dense foods (+7.4%EI; 95% CI 1.3, 13.5) and protein (+2.4%EI; 95% CI 0.1, 4.6), and reduced %EI from fried/takeaway foods (−3.6%EI; 95% CI −6.5, −0.7), baked sweet products (−2.0%EI; 95% CI −3.6, −0.4), and packaged snacks (−1.1%EI; 95% CI −2.2, −0.3). This weight loss intervention reduced total energy and sodium intakes as well as increased fruit intake in adults at six months. The enhanced intervention group reported improved dietary intake relative to the traditional group at 12 months.