Physical activity and public health

2021 ◽  
pp. 73-84
Author(s):  
Nyssa T. Hadgraft ◽  
Neville Owen ◽  
Paddy C. Dempsey

There are well-established chronic disease prevention and broader public health benefits associated with being physically active. However, large proportions of the adult populations of developed countries and rapidly urbanizing developing countries are inactive. Additionally, many people’s lives are now characterized by large amounts of time spent sitting—at work, at home, and in automobiles. Widespread urbanization, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, has resulted in large segments of traditionally active rural populations moving into cities. Many previously manual tasks in the occupational and household sectors have become automated, making life easier and safer in many respects. However, a pervasive consequence of these developments is that large numbers of people globally are now going about their daily lives in environments that place them at risk of overweight and obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and other health problems. This represents a formidable set of public health challenges. In this context, the present chapter describes: key definitions and distinctions relating to physical activity, exercise, and sedentary behaviour; current evidence on relationships physical inactivity and sitting time with health outcomes, and associated public health recommendations; prevalence and trends in physical activity and sedentary behaviours, and some of the key issues for surveillance and measurement; and, how physical activity and sedentary behaviour may be understood in ways that will inform broad-based public health approaches. An interdisciplinary and intersectoral strategy is emphasized. This requires working with constituencies beyond the public health field, such as urban planning, architecture, occupational health and safety, and social policy.

Author(s):  
Paddy C. Dempsey ◽  
Stuart J. H. Biddle ◽  
Matthew P. Buman ◽  
Sebastien Chastin ◽  
Ulf Ekelund ◽  
...  

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 672-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric T. Hyde ◽  
John D. Omura ◽  
Janet E. Fulton ◽  
Andre Weldy ◽  
Susan A. Carlson

Purpose: Wearable activity monitors (wearables) have generated interest for national physical activity (PA) surveillance; however, concerns exist related to estimates obtained from current users willing to share data. We examined how limiting data to current users who are willing to share data associated with PA estimates in a nationwide sample. Design: Cross-sectional web-based survey. Setting: US adults. Subjects: In total, 942 respondents. Measures: The 2018 Government & Academic Omnibus Survey assessing current wearable use, willingness to share data with various people or organizations, and PA levels. Analysis: Estimated the prevalence of current wearable use; current users’ willingness to share data with various people or organizations; and PA levels overall, among current users, and among current users willing to share their data. Results: Overall, 21.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 19.1-24.5) of US adults reported currently using a wearable. Among current users, willingness to share ranged from 40.1% with a public health agency to 76.3% with their health-care provider. Overall, 62.2% (95% CI: 58.9-65.3) of adults were physically active. These levels were similar between current users (75.0%, 95% CI: 68.3-80.7) and current users willing to share their data (75.3%, 95% CI: 67.9-81.5). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that using data from wearable users may overestimate PA levels, although reported willingness to share the data may not compound this issue.


Author(s):  
Hidde P. van der Ploeg ◽  
Fiona C. Bull

AbstractIn this editorial we discuss the new 2020 World Health Organization guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour and a series of related papers that are published simultaneously in IJBNPA. The new guidelines reaffirm that physical activity is a ‘best buy’ for public health and should be used to support governments to increase investment in policy and research to promote and ensure physical activity opportunities are available for everyone. New recommendations on sedentary behaviour and inclusion of specific guidelines for people living with disability and/or chronic disease and pregnant and postpartum women are major developments since 2010. We discuss research priorities, as well as policy implementation and the contribution to the sustainable development agenda. The new guidelines can catalyse the paradigm shifts needed to enable equitable opportunities to be physically active for everyone, everywhere, every day.


2019 ◽  
Vol 57 ◽  
pp. 277-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Cleland ◽  
Rodrigo Siqueira Reis ◽  
Adriano Akira Ferreira Hino ◽  
Ruth Hunter ◽  
Rogério César Fermino ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (6) ◽  
pp. 377-382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Stamatakis ◽  
Ulf Ekelund ◽  
Ding Ding ◽  
Mark Hamer ◽  
Adrian E Bauman ◽  
...  

Sedentary behaviour (SB) has been proposed as an ‘independent’ risk factor for chronic disease risk, attracting much research and media attention. Many countries have included generic, non-quantitative reductions in SB in their public health guidelines and calls for quantitative SB targets are increasing. The aim of this narrative review is to critically evaluate key evidence areas relating to the development of guidance on sitting for adults. We carried out a non-systematic narrative evidence synthesis across seven key areas: (1) definition of SB, (2) independence of sitting from physical activity, (3) use of television viewing as a proxy of sitting, (4) interpretation of SB evidence, (5) evidence on ‘sedentary breaks’, (6) evidence on objectively measured sedentary SB and mortality and (7) dose response of sitting and mortality/cardiovascular disease. Despite research progress, we still know little about the independent detrimental health effects of sitting, and the possibility that sitting is mostly the inverse of physical activity remains. Unresolved issues include an unclear definition, inconsistencies between mechanistic and epidemiological studies, over-reliance on surrogate outcomes, a very weak epidemiological evidence base to support the inclusion of ‘sedentary breaks’ in guidelines, reliance on self-reported sitting measures, and misinterpretation of data whereby methodologically inconsistent associations are claimed to be strong evidence. In conclusion, public health guidance requires a consistent evidence base but this is lacking for SB. The development of quantitative SB guidance, using an underdeveloped evidence base, is premature; any further recommendations for sedentary behaviour require development of the evidence base and refinement of the research paradigms used in the field.


2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (02/03) ◽  
pp. 077-081
Author(s):  
Amrita Ghosh ◽  
Ranabir Pal ◽  
Luis Rafael Moscote-Salazar ◽  
Huber Said Padilla-Zambrano ◽  
Harsh Deora ◽  
...  

AbstractNeurotrauma is an underestimated and less understood public health issue in low- and middle-income countries for which we need system-based approach to prevention plans. This study was initiated to find rationale of effective plan with projectile vision of neurotrauma prevention. In search of innovative ideas of neurotrauma prevention evidence was explored from the published literature research on traumatic brain injury. Evidence-based global guidelines on recommended content and scheduling on prevention of neurotrauma literature searches data were also synthesized and summarized from research in developed countries. Our study noted that a considerable number of victims of neurotrauma with death and disabilities put mammoth costs to the already compromised health systems of the low- and middle-income countries. We need systems-based four-pronged approach incorporating neurotrauma registry, neurotrauma surveillance, translational research programs, and current approved process for development of clinical guidelines for prevention.


2007 ◽  
Vol 4 (s1) ◽  
pp. S64-S71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathy J. Spangler ◽  
Linda L. Caldwell

A collaborative framework that influences the promotion of policy related to physical activity should include parks and recreation as well as public health practitioners and researchers. As governments at all levels become increasingly focused on the impact of public resources, park and recreation agencies are challenged to document and demonstrate the impact of leisure services. Public policy associated with parks and recreation is driven by public interest and is often debated in the absence of relevant research to demonstrate the determinants and correlates of parks and recreation to address prevailing social conditions. This paper describes current policy and funding issues faced by public parks and recreation professionals responding to increasing physically active leisure across the lifespan of Americans. We also discuss how a collaborative framework approach can be used to inform public policy designed to increase the physical activity of the American public.


2004 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 447-460 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon J. Lees ◽  
Frank W. Booth

Sedentary death syndrome (SeDS) is a major public health burden due to its causing multiple chronic diseases and millions of premature deaths each year. Despite the impact of physical inactivity, very little is known about the actual causes of physical inactivity-induced chronic diseases. It is important to study the mechanisms underlying molecular changes related to physical inactivity in order to better understand the scientific basis of individualized exercise prescription and the rapies for chronic diseases, and to support improved public health efforts by providing molecular proof that physical inactivity is an actual cause of chronic diseases. Physical activity has a genetic basis. A subpopulation of genes, which have functioned to support physical activity for survival through most of humankind's existence, require daily exercise to maintain long-term health and vitality. Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is an example of a SeDS condition, as it is almost entirely preventable with physical activity. To determine the true role of physical inactivity in the development and progression of T2D, information is presented which indicates that comparisons should be made to physically active controls, rather than sedentary controls, as this population is the healthiest. Use of sedentary subjects as the control group has led to potentially misleading interpretations. If physically active individuals were designated as the control group, a different interpretation would have been drawn. It is thought that there is no difference in GLUT4 concentration between T2D and sedentary groups. However, GLUT4 expression is higher in active controls than in sedentary and T2D groups. Therefore, to obtain causal mechanisms for SeDS in order to allow for scientifically based prevention and therapy strategies, physically active subjects must serve as the control group. Key words: physical inactivity, chronic diseases, diabetes, glucose


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document