scholarly journals Effective and resource efficient strategies for recruiting families in physical activity, sedentary behaviour, nutrition, and obesity prevention research: A systematic review with expert opinion

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. S66-S67
Author(s):  
J. Guagliano ◽  
C. Hughes ◽  
K. Morton ◽  
E. Van Slujis
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Obesity Prevention ◽  
Prevention Research

scholarly journals Systematic review of interventions in the childcare setting with direct parental involvement: effectiveness on child weight status and energy balance-related behaviours

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
I. van de Kolk ◽  
S. R. B. Verjans-Janssen ◽  
J. S. Gubbels ◽  
S. P. J. Kremers ◽  
S. M. P. L. Gerards
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Energy Balance ◽  
Parental Involvement ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Weight Status ◽  
Overweight And Obesity ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Intervention Effectiveness

Abstract Background The early years are a crucial period to promote healthy energy balance-related behaviours in children and prevent overweight and obesity. The childcare setting is important for health-promoting interventions. Increasingly, attention has been paid to parental involvement in childcare-based interventions. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions with direct parental involvement on the children’s weight status and behavioural outcomes. Methods A systematic search was conducted in four electronic databases to include studies up until January 2019. Studies written in English, describing results on relevant outcomes (weight status, physical activity, sedentary behaviour and/or nutrition-related behaviour) of childcare-based interventions with direct parental involvement were included. Studies not adopting a pre-post-test design or reporting on pilot studies were excluded. To improve comparability, effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were calculated. Information on different types of environment targeted (e.g., social, physical, political and economic) was extracted in order to narratively examine potential working principles of effective interventions. Results A total of 22 studies, describing 17 different interventions, were included. With regard to the intervention group, 61.1% found some favourable results on weight status, 73.3% on physical activity, 88.9% on sedentary behaviour, and all on nutrition-related behaviour. There were studies that also showed unfavourable results. Only a small number of studies was able to show significant differences between the intervention and control group (22.2% weight status, 60.0% physical activity, 66.6% sedentary behaviour, 76.9% nutrition behaviour). Effect sizes, if available, were predominantly small to moderate, with some exceptions with large effect sizes. The interventions predominantly targeted the socio-cultural and physical environments in both the childcare and home settings. Including changes in the political environment in the intervention and a higher level of intensity of parental involvement appeared to positively impact intervention effectiveness. Conclusion Childcare-based interventions with direct parental involvement show promising effects on the children’s energy balance-related behaviours. However, evidence on effectiveness is limited, particularly for weight-related outcomes. Better understanding of how to reach and involve parents may be essential for strengthening intervention effectiveness.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of physical activity promotion and exercise referral in primary care: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Pierre Laake ◽  
Joanna Fleming
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Physical Activity Promotion ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Activity Promotion ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Exercise Referral

Abstract Background Physical inactivity is the fourth leading risk factor for global mortality. Reducing sedentary behaviour and increasing physical activity are efficacious for improving many physical and mental health conditions including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and depression. Reducing sedentary behaviour and increasing physical activity can also be effective at reducing obesity; however, sedentary behaviour and reduced physical activity are also associated with mortality independently. Despite this, most adults in the UK do not currently meet the UK Chief Medical Officers’ guidelines for weekly physical activity. As most adults visit their general practitioner at least once a year, the primary care consultation provides a unique opportunity to deliver exercise referral or physical activity promotion interventions. This is a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials for the effectiveness of physical activity promotion and referral in primary care. Methods A comprehensive literature search of Embase, MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science (Core Collection), Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and The Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) will be conducted for studies with a minimum follow-up of 12 months that report physical activity as an outcome measure (by either self-report or objective measures) including an intention to treat analysis. The authors will screen papers, first by title and abstract and then by full text, independently assess studies for inclusion, appraise risk of bias and extract data. The quality of the evidence will be assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations) approach. The primary outcome will be participation in physical activity at 12 months. Pooled effects will be calculated using random effects models. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and for presentation at UK national primary care conferences. Discussion This systematic review and meta-analyses will summarise the evidence for the effectiveness of physical activity promotion and referral as interventions for improving physical activity, as well as whether studies using objective measures of physical activity have similar effects to those studies using self-report measures. This knowledge has importance for primary care clinicians, patients and, given the focus of the recent NHS long-term plan on preventive medicine, those making policy decisions. Systematic review registration The protocol is registered with PROSPERO the international prospective register of systematic reviews, ID CRD42019130831

scholarly journals New global guidelines on sedentary behaviour and health for adults: broadening the behavioural targets

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paddy C. Dempsey ◽  
Stuart J. H. Biddle ◽  
Matthew P. Buman ◽  
Sebastien Chastin ◽  
Ulf Ekelund ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cancer Mortality ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Vigorous Physical Activity ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
World Health

Abstract Background In 2018, the World Health Organisation (WHO) commenced a program of work to update the 2010 Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health, for the first-time providing population-based guidelines on sedentary behaviour. This paper briefly summarizes and highlights the scientific evidence behind the new sedentary behaviour guidelines for all adults and discusses its strengths and limitations, including evidence gaps/research needs and potential implications for public health practice. Methods An overview of the scope and methods used to update the evidence is provided, along with quality assessment and grading methods for the eligible new systematic reviews. The literature search update was conducted for WHO by an external team and reviewers used the AMSTAR 2 (Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews) tool for critical appraisal of the systematic reviews under consideration for inclusion. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method was used to rate the certainty (i.e. very low to high) of the evidence. Results The updated systematic review identified 22 new reviews published from 2017 up to August 2019, 14 of which were incorporated into the final evidence profiles. Overall, there was moderate certainty evidence that higher amounts of sedentary behaviour increase the risk for all-cause, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer mortality, as well as incidence of CVD, cancer, and type 2 diabetes. However, evidence was deemed insufficient at present to set quantified (time-based) recommendations for sedentary time. Moderate certainty evidence also showed that associations between sedentary behaviour and all-cause, CVD and cancer mortality vary by level of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), which underpinned additional guidance around MVPA in the context of high sedentary time. Finally, there was insufficient or low-certainty systematic review evidence on the type or domain of sedentary behaviour, or the frequency and/or duration of bouts or breaks in sedentary behaviour, to make specific recommendations for the health outcomes examined. Conclusions The WHO 2020 guidelines are based on the latest evidence on sedentary behaviour and health, along with interactions between sedentary behaviour and MVPA, and support implementing public health programmes and policies aimed at increasing MVPA and limiting sedentary behaviour. Important evidence gaps and research opportunities are identified.

scholarly journals Workplace neighbourhood built environment and workers’ physically-active and sedentary behaviour: a systematic review of observational studies

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chien-Yu Lin ◽  
Mohammad Javad Koohsari ◽  
Yung Liao ◽  
Kaori Ishii ◽  
Ai Shibata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Built Environment ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
English Language ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Working Hours ◽  
Recreational Physical Activity ◽  
Domain Specific

Abstract Background Many desk-based workers can spend more than half of their working hours sitting, with low levels of physical activity. Workplace neighbourhood built environment may influence workers’ physical activities and sedentary behaviours on workdays. We reviewed and synthesised evidence from observational studies on associations of workplace neighbourhood attributes with domain-specific physical activity and sedentary behaviour and suggested research priorities for improving the quality of future relevant studies. Methods Published studies were obtained from nine databases (PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Scopus, Transport Research International Documentation, MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, and CINAHL) and crosschecked by Google Scholar. Observational studies with quantitative analyses estimating associations between workplace neighbourhood built environment attributes and workers’ physical activity or sedentary behaviour were included. Studies were restricted to those published in English language peer-reviewed journals from 2000 to 2019. Results A total of 55 studies and 455 instances of estimated associations were included. Most instances of potential associations of workplace neighbourhood built environment attributes with total or domain-specific (occupational, transport, and recreational) physical activity were non-significant. However, destination-related attributes (i.e., longer distances from workplace to home and access to car parking) were positively associated with transport-related sedentary behaviour (i.e., car driving). Conclusions The findings reinforce the case for urban design policies on designing mixed-use neighbourhoods where there are opportunities to live closer to workplaces and have access to a higher density of shops, services, and recreational facilities. Studies strengthening correspondence between the neighbourhood built environment attributes and behaviours are needed to identify and clarify potential relationships. Protocol registration The protocol of this systematic review was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 2 December 2019 (registration number: CRD42019137341).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document