In-hospital stress and patient outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hospital inpatients are exposed to high levels of stress during hospitalisation that may increase susceptibility to major adverse health events post-hospitalisation (known as post-hospital syndrome). However, the existing evidence base has not been reviewed and the magnitude of this relationship remains unknown. Therefore, the aim of the current systematic review and meta-analysis was to: 1) synthesise existing evidence and to determine the strength of the relationship between in-hospital stress and patient outcomes, and 2) determine if this relationship differs between (i) in-hospital vs post-hospital outcomes, and (ii) subjective vs objective outcome measures. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception to February 2023 was conducted. Included studies reported a measure of perceived and appraised stress while in hospital, and at least one patient outcome. A random-effects model was generated to pool correlations (Pearson's r), followed by sub-group and sensitivity analyses. The study protocol was preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42021237017). RESULTS: A total of 10 studies, comprising 16 effects and 1,832 patients, satisfied the eligibility criteria and were included. A small-to-medium association was found: as in-hospital stress increased, patient outcomes deteriorated (r = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.12-0.26; I2 = 63.6; p < 0.001). This association was significantly stronger for (i) in-hospital versus post-hospital outcomes, and (ii) subjective versus objective outcome measures. Sensitivity analyses indicated that our findings were robust. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of psychological stress experienced by hospital inpatients are associated with poorer patient outcomes. However, more high-quality, larger scale studies are required to better understand the association between in-hospital stressors and adverse outcomes.

Identifying Safety Practices Perceived as Low Value: An Exploratory Survey of Healthcare Staff in the United Kingdom and Australia.

OBJECTIVES: Up to 30% of healthcare spending is considered unnecessary and represents systematic waste. While much attention has been given to low-value clinical tests and treatments, much less has focused on identifying low-value safety practices in healthcare settings. With increasing recognition of the problem of "safety clutter" in organizations, it is important to consider deimplementing safety practices that do not benefit patients, to create the time needed to deliver effective, person-centered, and safe care. This study surveyed healthcare staff to identify safety practices perceived to be of low value. METHODS: Purposive and snowball sampling was used. Data collection was conducted from April 2018 to November 2019 (United Kingdom) and May 2020 to November 2020 (Australia). Participants completed the survey online or in hard copy to identify practices they perceived to not contribute to safe care. Responses were analyzed using content and thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1394 responses from 1041 participants were analyzed. Six hundred sixty-three responses were collected from 526 UK participants and 515 Australian participants contributed 731 responses. Frequently identified categories of practices identified included "paperwork," "duplication," and "intentional rounding." Five cross-cutting themes (e.g., covering ourselves) offered an underpinning rationale for why staff perceived the practices to be of low value. CONCLUSIONS: Staff identified safety practices that they perceived to be low value. In healthcare systems under strain, removing existing low-value practices should be a priority. Careful evaluation of these identified safety practices is required to determine whether they are appropriate for deimplementation and, if not, to explore how to better support healthcare workers to perform them.

Developing a research community within an online healthcare feedback platform.

INTRODUCTION: Care Opinion is an online feedback platform supporting patients to author stories about their care. It is not known whether authors would be willing to be involved in improving care through research. The aims of this study were to explore the views and preferences of Care Opinion authors about joining an online research community and to pilot new research community functionality. METHODS: Five hundred and nine Care Opinion authors were invited to take part in an online survey in June 2019. Survey items included questions about participants' willingness to take part in research and their preferences for supporting processes. Data were analysed descriptively. Authors were invited to consent to join a research community and were asked to participate in three pilot studies. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-three people consented to take part in the survey (32%). Participants indicated they would like to know the time commitment to the project (146, 90%), details about the organization carrying out the research (124, 76%) and safeguarding information (124, 76%). Over half indicated that they did not know how to get involved in healthcare research (87, 53%). Subsequently, 667 authors were invited to join the research community, 183 (27%) accepted, and three studies were matched to their expressed preferences for project attributes or organization type. CONCLUSION: Many people who leave online feedback about their experiences of healthcare are also willing to join a research community via that platform. They have strong preferences for supporting University and NHS research. Eligibility and acceptance rates to join pilot research studies varied. Further work is needed to grow the research community, increase its diversity, and create relevant and varied opportunities to support research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Four members of the Safety In Numbers patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group advised about survey development.

A glimpse behind the organisational curtain: A dramaturgical analysis exploring the ways healthcare staff engage with online patient feedback 'front' and 'backstage' at three hospital Trusts in England.

Healthcare staff are encouraged to use feedback from their patients to inform service and quality improvement. Receiving patient feedback via online channels is a relatively new phenomenon that has rarely been conceptualised. Further, the implications of a wide, varied and unknown(able) audience being able to view and interact with online patient feedback are yet to be understood. We applied a theoretical lens of dramaturgy to a large ethnographic dataset, collected across three NHS Trusts during 2019/2020. We found that organisations demonstrated varying levels of 'preparedness to perform' online, from invisibility through to engaging in public conversation with patients within a wider mission for transparency. Restrictive 'cast lists' of staff able to respond to patients was the hallmark of one organisation, whereas another devolved responding responsibility amongst a wide array of multidisciplinary staff. The visibility of patient-staff interactions had the potential to be culturally disruptive, dichotomously invoking either apprehensions of reputational threat or providing windows of opportunity. We surmise that a transparent and conversational feedback response frontstage aligns with the ability to better prioritise backstage improvement. Legitimising the autonomous frontstage activity of diverse staff groups may help shift organisational culture, and gradually ripple outwards a shared responsibility for transparent improvement.

The feasibility and acceptability of implementing video reflexive ethnography (VRE) as an improvement tool in acute maternity services.

BACKGROUND: Video-reflexive ethnography (VRE) has been argued to be an alternative approach to collaborative learning in healthcare teams, more able to capture the complexities of the healthcare environment than simulation. This study aims to explore the feasibility and acceptability of employing VRE as an improvement tool in acute maternity services. METHOD: Focused ethnography and semi-structured interviews (n = 17) explored the feasibility of employing VRE from the perspective of the researcher-facilitator, and that of the healthcare staff participants. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to generate key themes. RESULTS: We identified four themes related to feasibility of employing VRE as an improvement approach: laying the groundwork; challenges of capturing in-situ video footage; effective facilitation of reflexive feedback; and, power to change. Of note was the central role of the facilitator in building and maintaining staff trust in the process, particularly in being able to guide collaborative, non-punitive discussion during reflexive feedback sessions. Interestingly, when considering implementation of change, structural hierarchies were evident with more senior staff better able to develop and effect ideas. Two themes related to acceptability of VRE among healthcare staff were identified: staff response to the role of VRE in improvement; and the power of a different perspective. Staff were overwhelmingly positive about their experience of VRE, particularly appreciating the time, space and autonomy it afforded them to navigate and articulate ideas for change and improvement. CONCLUSION: VRE is both feasible and acceptable as an improvement tool with acute, multi-disciplinary maternity staff teams. It is an important healthcare improvement tool that could prompt the development and maintenance of team resilience factors in the face of increasing stress and burn-out of healthcare staff in maternity services.

Exploring the sociocultural contexts in which healthcare staff respond to and use online patient feedback in practice: In-depth case studies of three NHS Trusts.

Objectives: Patients are increasingly reporting about their healthcare experiences online and NHS Trusts are adopting different approaches to responding. However, the sociocultural contexts underpinning these organisational approaches remain unclear. Therefore, we aimed to explore the sociocultural contexts underpinning three organisations who adopted different approaches to responding to online patient feedback. Methods: Recruitment of three NHS Trusts was theoretically guided, and determined based on their different approaches to responding to online patient feedback (a nonresponding organisation, a generic responding organisation and an organisation providing transparent, conversational responses). Ethnographic methods were used during a year of fieldwork involving staff interviews, observations of practice and documentary analysis. Three in-depth case studies are presented. Findings: The first organisation did not respond to or use online patient feedback as staff were busy firefighting volumes of concerns received in other ways. The second organisation adopted a generic responding style due to resource constraints, fears of public engagement and focus on resolving known issues raised via more traditional feedback sources. The final organisation provided transparent, conversational responses to patients online and described a 10-year journey enabling their desired culture to be embedded. Conclusions: We identified a range of barriers facing organisations who ignore or provide generic responses to patient feedback online. We also demonstrated the sociocultural context in which online interactions between staff and patients can be embraced to inform improvement. However, this represented a slow and difficult organisational journey. Further research is needed to better establish how organisations can recognise and overcome barriers to engaging with online patient feedback, and at pace.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the pooled rate of post-thrombotic syndrome after isolated distal deep venous thrombosis.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the rate of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) after isolated distal deep venous thrombosis (IDDVT) by performing a meta-analysis of the rate of PTS across randomised and observational studies. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Clinicaltrials.gov, European Union Clinical Trials, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number and the Australian and New-Zealand Trials Registries. REVIEW METHODS: The review followed PRISMA guidelines using a registered protocol (CRD42021282136). Databases were searched up to December 2021 and prospective studies reporting the development of post-thrombotic syndrome were included; these were pooled with meta-analysis. RESULTS: The results showed a post-thrombotic rate of 17% (95% CI 11-26%, p<.01) (7 studies, 217 cases, 1105 participants). Heterogeneity was high (I2= 89%). On meta-regression, the rate of post-thrombotic syndrome was not correlated with the length of follow up (p=.71). Three studies (302 participants) reported the severity of post-thrombotic syndrome: 78% were mild (Villalta score 5-9); 11% were moderate (Villalta score 10-14) and 11% were severe (Villalta score 15 or more). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of post-thrombotic syndrome after IDDVT is 1 in 5 and the risk of severe clinical manifestations, including ulceration, is 1 in 50. There was significant clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity between studies and a substantial risk of bias from pooled studies. Randomised trials to support interventions for prevention of post-thrombotic syndrome are urgently needed.

Reducing delayed transfer of care in older people: A qualitative study of barriers and facilitators to shorter hospital stays.

INTRODUCTION: Growing numbers of older patients occupy hospital beds despite being 'medically fit' for discharge. These Delayed Transfers of Care amplify inefficiencies in care and can cause harm. Delayed transfer because of family or patient choice is common; yet, research on patient and family perspectives is scarce. To identify barriers to, and facilitators of, shorter hospital stays, we sought to understand older people's and caregivers' thoughts and feelings about the benefits and harms of being in hospital and the decisions made at discharge. METHODS: A multimethod qualitative study was carried out. Content analysis was carried out of older people's experiences of health or care services submitted to the Care Opinion online website, followed by telephone and video interviews with older people and family members of older people experiencing a hospital stay in the previous 12 months. RESULTS: Online accounts provide insight into how care was organized for older people in the hospital, including deficiencies in care organization, the discharge process and communication, as well as how care was experienced by older people and family members. Interview-generated themes included shared meanings of hospitalization and discharge experiences and the context of discharge decisions including failure in communication systems, unwarranted variation and lack of confidence in care and lack of preparation for ongoing care. CONCLUSION: Poor quality and availability of information, and poor communication, inhibit effective transfer of care. Communication is fundamental to patient-centred care and even more important in discharge models characterized by limited assessments and quicker discharge. Interventions at the service level and targeted patient information about what to expect in discharge assessments and after discharge could help to address poor communication and support for improving discharge of older people from hospital. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The Frailty Oversight Group, a small group of older people providing oversight of the Community Aging Research 75+ study, provided feedback on the research topic and level of interest, the draft data collection tools and the feasibility of collecting data with older people during the COVID-19 pandemic. The group also reviewed preliminary findings and provided feedback on our interpretation.

Improving the safety and experience of transitions from hospital to home: a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial of the 'Your Care Needs You' intervention versus usual care.

BACKGROUND: The 'Your Care Needs You' (YCNY) intervention aims to increase the safety and experience of transitions for older people through greater patient involvement during the hospital stay. METHODS: A cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial was conducted on NHS inpatient wards (clusters) where ≥ 40% of patients were routinely ≥ 75 years. Wards were randomised to YCNY or usual care using an unequal allocation ratio (3:2). We aimed to recruit up to 20 patients per ward. Follow-up included routine data collection and questionnaires at 5-, 30-, and 90-days post-discharge. Eligible patients were ≥ 75 years, discharged home, stayed overnight on participating wards, and could read and understand English. The trial assessed the feasibility of delivering YCNY and the trial methodology through recruitment rates, outcome completion rates, and a qualitative evaluation. The accuracy of using routinely coded data for the primary outcome in the definitive trial was assessed by extracting discharge information for up to ten nonindividual consenting patients per ward. RESULTS: Ten wards were randomised (6 intervention, 4 control). One ward withdrew, and two wards were unable to deliver the intervention. Seven-hundred twenty-one patients were successfully screened, and 161 were recruited (95 intervention, 66 control). The patient post-discharge attrition rate was 17.4% (n = 28). Primary outcome data were gathered for 91.9% of participants with 75.2% and 59.0% providing secondary outcome data at 5 and 30 days post-discharge respectively. Item completion within questionnaires was generally high. Post-discharge follow-up was terminated early due to the COVID-19 pandemic affecting 90-day response rates (16.8%). Data from 88 nonindividual consenting patients identified an error rate of 15% when using routinely coded data for the primary outcome. No unexpected serious adverse events were identified. Most patients viewed YCNY favourably. Staff agreed with it in principle, but ward pressures and organisational contexts hampered implementation. There was a need to sustain engagement, provide clarity on roles and responsibilities, and account for fluctuations in patients' health, capacity, and preferences. CONCLUSIONS: If implementation challenges can be overcome, YCNY represents a step towards involving older people as partners in their care to improve the safety and experience of their transitions from hospital to home. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 51154948.

Implementing personalised care planning for older people with frailty: a process evaluation of the PROSPER feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Personalised Care Planning (PCP) is a collaborative approach used in the management of chronic conditions. Core components of PCP are shared decision making to achieve joint goal setting and action planning by the clinician and patient. We undertook a process evaluation within the PROSPER feasibility trial to understand how best to implement PCP for older people with frailty in the community. METHODS: The trial was set in two localities in England. We observed training sessions and intervention delivery at three time points during the 12-week intervention period. We interviewed delivery teams before, during and after the intervention period, as well as primary care staff. We interviewed older people who had received, declined or withdrawn from PCP. We explored training of staff delivering PCP, structures, mechanisms and resources needed for delivery, and influences on uptake. We undertook a framework approach to data analysis. FINDINGS: We observed thirteen training sessions and interviewed seven delivery staff, five primary care staff, and twenty older people, including seven who had declined or withdrawn from the intervention. Delivery teams successfully acquired skills and knowledge, but felt underprepared for working with people with lower levels of frailty. Timing of training was critical and 'top-ups' were needed. Engagement with primary care staff was tenuous. Older people with lower frailty were unclear of the intervention purpose and benefits, goal setting and action planning. CONCLUSIONS: PCP has the potential to address the individualised needs of older people with frailty. However, training requires careful tailoring and is ideally on-going. Considerable efforts are required to integrate statutory and voluntary stakeholders, understanding the expectations and contributions of each agency from the outset. In addition, older people with frailty need time and support to adjust to new ways of thinking about their own health now and in the future so they can participate in shared decision making. These key factors will be essential when developing models of care for delivering PCP to support older people with frailty to sustain their independence and quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 12,363,970 - 08/11/2018.

A qualitative formative evaluation of a patient facing intervention to improve care transitions for older people moving from hospital to home.

BACKGROUND: The Partners at Care Transitions (PACTs) intervention was developed to support older people's involvement in hospital to improve outcomes at home. A booklet, question card, record sheet, induction leaflet, and patient-friendly discharge letter support patients to be more involved in their health and wellbeing, medications, activities of daily living and post-discharge care. We aimed to assess intervention acceptability, identify implementation tools, and further develop the intervention. METHODS: This was a qualitative formative evaluation involving three wards from one hospital. We recruited 25 patients aged 75 years and older. Ward staff supported intervention delivery. Data were collected in wards and patients' homes, through semi-structured interviews, observation, and documentary analysis. Data were analysed inductively and iteratively with findings sorted according to the research aims. RESULTS: Patients and staff felt there was a need for, and understood the purpose of, the PACT intervention. Most patients read the booklet but other components were variably used. Implementation challenges included time, awareness, and balancing intervention benefits against risks. Changes to the intervention and implementation included clarifying the booklet's messages, simplifying the discharge letter to reduce staff burden, and using prompts and handouts to promote awareness. CONCLUSION: The PACT intervention offers a promising new way to improve care transitions for older people by supporting patient involvement in their care. After further development of the intervention and implementation package, it will undergo further testing. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study regularly consulted a panel representing the local patient community, who supported the development of this intervention and its implementation.

Capturing Parents' Perspectives of Child Wellness to Support Identification of Acutely Unwell Children in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVE: Early signs of serious illness can be difficult to recognize in children and a delayed response can result in poor outcomes. Drawing on the unique knowledge of parents and carers may improve identification of the deteriorating child. However, there is a lack of evidence exploring parental perspectives as part of track and trigger systems. This study examines the utility of capturing parent-reported child wellness, using the Patient Wellness Questionnaire for Pediatrics, to support identification of acutely unwell children presenting to the Emergency Department. METHODS: Parent-reported child wellness was recorded alongside the Pediatric Observation Priority Score (POPS), a multidimensional scoring system akin to a Pediatric Early Warning Score, used as part of routine care. Multiple linear regression assessed the independent effects of 3 variables (parent-reported child wellness, nurse concern, and child age) on POPS and hospital admission. RESULTS: Data were collected for 407 children. All 3 variables explained a statistically significant proportion of variance in POPS (F(3, 403) = 7.525, P < 0.001, R2 = 0.053), with parent-reported child wellness (B = 0.223, SE = 0.054, ß = 0.202, P < 0.001) having the strongest effect. Approximately 10% of the children with no physiological derangement were rated as "very poorly" by their parents. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that parents have insight in to the wellness of their children that is reflected in the physiological assessment. Some parents' perceptions about their child's wellness were not consistent with the score captured in the same assessment. More work is needed to understand how to use and address parental perspectives and concerns to support clinical decision making and the management of acute illness.

Caring in a crisis: Understanding the stressors and uplifts for National Health Service frontline staff through the lens of clinical psychologists.

The unprecedented public health crisis of the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in a significant challenge to the delivery of healthcare that has rarely been experienced before. The stress already faced by healthcare staff working in the National Health Service (NHS) has been further exacerbated during Covid-19, putting them at risk of adverse mental health outcomes. Through the lens of clinical psychologists who had provided support to frontline healthcare staff during the Covid-19 pandemic, this study aimed to better understand the stressors and uplifts healthcare staff experienced during Covid-19, the impact of these on the wellbeing of staff and patient care, and to examine the support needed to deal with the impact of a crisis. A qualitative study design using a combination of diaries followed by semi-structured interviews was utilised. Data was analysed using thematic analysis. The following five themes represented the stressors and uplifts experienced by NHS frontline healthcare staff during Covid-19, the impact on staff wellbeing and patient care: facing change; risks of working in the NHS environment; transcending the negatives; challenging professional values and haunted by patient deaths. The findings also highlight the importance of providing psychological support and suggest the need to continue to provide this support service to help NHS staff manage through subsequent waves of the pandemic. These findings can contribute towards both the management of the current Covid-19 pandemic and other similar crises in the future.

Toward Constructive Change After Making a Medical Error: Recovery From Situations of Error Theory as a Psychosocial Model for Clinician Recovery.

BACKGROUND: Making a medical error is a uniquely challenging psychosocial experience for clinicians. Feelings of personal responsibility, coupled with distress regarding potential or actual patient harm resulting from a mistake, create a dual burden. Over the past 20 years, experiential accounts of making an error have provided evidence of the associated distress and impacts. However, theory-based psychosocial support interventions to improve both individual outcomes for the involved clinicians and system-level outcomes, such as patient safety and workforce retention, are lacking. There is a need for evidence-based ways to both structure and evaluate interventions to decrease the distress of making a medical error and its impacts. Such interventions play a role within wider programs of health professional support. We sought to address this by developing a testable, psychosocial model of clinician recovery after error based on recent evidence. METHODS: Systematic review methodology was used to identify studies published between January 2010 and June 2021 reporting experiences of direct involvement in medical errors and/or subsequent recovery. A narrative synthesis was produced from the resulting articles and used as the basis for a team-based qualitative approach to model building. RESULTS: We identified 25 studies eligible for inclusion, reporting evidence primarily from experiences of doctors and nurses. The identified evidence indicates that coping approach, conversations (whether they occur and whether they are perceived to be helpful or unhelpful), and learning or development activities (helpful, unhelpful or absent) may influence the relationship between making an error and both individual clinician outcomes of emotional impact and resultant practice change. Our findings led to the development of the Recovery from Situations of Error Theory model, which provides a preliminary theoretical basis for intervention development and testing. CONCLUSIONS: The Recovery from Situations of Error Theory model is the first testable psychosocial model of clinician recovery after making a medical error. Applying this model provides a basis to both structure and evaluate interventions to decrease the distress of making a medical error and its impacts and to support the replication of interventions that work across services and health systems toward constructive change. Such interventions may be embedded into the growing body of peer support and employee support programs internationally that address a diverse range of stressful workplace experiences.

Implementation of the graduated compression as an adjunct to pharmaco-thromboprophylaxis in surgery trial results across the UK.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to examine uptake and dissemination of a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded trial - Graduated compression as an Adjunct to Pharmaco-thromboprophylaxis in Surgery (GAPS) (project number: 14/140/61) amongst health professionals in the UK. This study aims to evaluate the impact of the trial on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention policies 7 months after publication. METHOD: A 12-question online survey emailed to 2750 individuals via several vascular societies, 34 VTE Exemplar Centre leads and 1 charity over a 3-month period. RESULTS: In total, 250 responses were received; a 9.1% response rate. Over half of all respondents (52.4%) had read the GAPS trial results prior to completing the survey. Precisely, 77.1% said their hospital had not yet made changes or did not intend to make changes to local hospital VTE policy based on the GAPS trial. CONCLUSIONS: Findings must be interpreted in the context of the low response rate. Further in-depth interviews would aid understanding of barriers to implementing change.

The Shared Safety Net Action Plan (SSNAP): a co-designed intervention to reduce delays in cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Safety netting in primary care may help diagnose cancer earlier, but it is unclear what the format and content of an acceptable safety-netting intervention would be. This project aimed to co-design a safety-netting intervention with and for primary care patients and staff. AIM: This work sought to address how a safety-netting intervention would be implemented in practice; and, if and how a safety-netting intervention would be acceptable to all stakeholders. DESIGN AND SETTING: Patient representatives, GPs, and nurse practitioners were invited to a series of co-design workshops. Patients who had and had not received a diagnosis of cancer and primary care practices took part in separate focus groups. METHOD: Three workshops using creative co-design processes developed the format and content of the intervention prototype. The COM-B Framework underpinned five focus groups to establish views on capability, opportunity, and motivation to use the intervention to assist with prototype refinement. RESULTS: Workshops and focus groups suggested the intervention format and content should incorporate visual and written communication specifying clear timelines for monitoring symptoms and when to present back; be available in paper and electronic forms linked to existing computer systems; and be able to be delivered within a 10-minute consultation. Intervention use themes included 'building confidence through partnership', 'using familiar and current procedures and systems', and 'seeing value'. CONCLUSION: The Shared Safety Net Action Plan (SSNAP) - a safety-netting intervention to assist the timely diagnosis of cancer in primary care, was successfully co-designed with and for patients and primary care staff.

Systematic review of process evaluations of interventions in trials investigating sedentary behaviour in adults.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and synthesise findings from process evaluations of interventions in trials which measured sedentary behaviour as an outcome in adults to explore: (1) how intervention content, implementation, mechanisms of impact and context influence outcomes and (2) how these interventions are experienced from different perspectives (participants, carers, staff). DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis underpinned by the Medical Research Council process evaluation framework. DATA SOURCES: Databases searches were conducted in March 2019 then updated in May 2020 and October 2021 in: CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, AMED; EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included: Process evaluations of trials including interventions where sedentary behaviour was measured as an outcome in adults aged 16 or over from clinical or non-clinical populations. We excluded studies if interventions were delivered in educational or workplace settings, or if they were laboratory studies focused on immediate effects of breaking sitting. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted and coded data into a framework and assessed the quality of studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We synthesised findings using a narrative approach. RESULTS: 17 process evaluations were included. Five interventions focused on reducing sedentary behaviour or sitting time, 12 aimed to increase physical activity or promote healthier lifestyles. Process evaluations indicated changes in sedentary behaviour outcomes were shaped by numerous factors including: barriers (eg, staffing difficulties and scheduling problems) and facilitators (eg, allowing for flexibility) to intervention delivery; contextual factors (eg, usual lifestyle and religious events) and individual factors (eg, pain, tiredness, illness, age and individual preferences). DISCUSSION: Intervention requires careful consideration of different factors that could influence changes in sedentary behaviour outcomes to ensure that interventions can be tailored to suit different individuals and groups. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018087403.