scholarly journals Sedentary behaviour among general practitioners: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Mayne ◽  
Nigel D. Hart ◽  
Neil Heron
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Sitting Time ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Cochrane Library ◽  
Activity Questionnaire

Abstract Background Sedentary behaviour is when someone is awake, in a sitting, lying or reclining posture and is an independent risk factor for multiple causes of morbidity and mortality. A dose-response relationship has been demonstrated, whereby increasing sedentary time corresponds with increasing mortality rate. This study aimed to identify current levels of sedentary behaviour among General Practitioners (GPs), by examining and synthesising how sedentary behaviour has been measured in the primary care literature. Methods A systematic review was conducted to identify studies relating to levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Searches were performed using Medline®, Embase®, PscycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, from inception of databases until January 2020, with a subsequent search of grey literature. Articles were assessed for quality and bias, with extraction of relevant data. Results The search criteria returned 1707 studies. Thirty four full texts were reviewed and 2 studies included in the final review. Both were cross-sectional surveys using self-reported estimation of sedentary time within the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Keohane et al. examined GP trainees and GP trainers in Ireland. 60% reported spending in excess of 7 h sitting each day, 24% between 4 and 7 h, and 16% less than or equal to 4 h. Suija et al. examined female GPs in Estonia. The mean reported daily sitting time was 6 h and 36 min, with 56% sitting for over 6 h per day. Both studies were of satisfactory methodological quality but had a high risk of bias. Conclusion There is a paucity of research examining current levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Objective data is needed to determine GPs’ current levels of sedentary behaviour, particularly in light of the increase in remote consulting as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

scholarly journals Sedentary Behaviour Among General Practitioners: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Mayne ◽  
Nigel D. Hart ◽  
Neil Heron
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Sitting Time ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Cochrane Library ◽  
Activity Questionnaire

Abstract BackgroundSedentary behaviour is when someone is awake, in a sitting, lying or reclining posture and is an independent risk factor for multiple causes of morbidity and mortality. A dose-response relationship has been demonstrated, whereby increasing sedentary time corresponds with increasing mortality rate. This study aimed to identify current levels of sedentary behaviour among General Practitioners (GPs), by examining and synthesising how sedentary behaviour has been measured in the primary care literature.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to identify studies relating to levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Searches were performed using Medline®, Embase®, PscycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, from inception of databases until January 2020, with a subsequent search of grey literature. Articles were assessed for quality and bias, with extraction of relevant data.ResultsThe search criteria returned 1707 studies. 34 full texts were reviewed and 2 studies included in the final review. Both were cross-sectional surveys using self-reported estimation of sedentary time within the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Keohane et al. examined GP trainees and GP trainers in Ireland. 60% reported spending in excess of 7 hours sitting each day, 24% between 4 and 7 hours, and 16% less than or equal to 4 hours. Suija et al. examined female GPs in Estonia. The mean reported daily sitting time was 6 hours and 36 minutes, with 56% sitting for over 6 hours per day. Both studies were of satisfactory methodological quality but had a high risk of bias.ConclusionThere is a paucity of research examining current levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Objective data is needed to determine GPs’ current levels of sedentary behaviour, particularly in light of the increase in remote consulting as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

scholarly journals Sedentary Behaviour Among General Practitioners: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Mayne ◽  
Nigel D. Hart ◽  
Neil Heron
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Sitting Time ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Cochrane Library ◽  
Activity Questionnaire

Abstract BackgroundSedentary behaviour is when someone is awake, in a sitting, lying or reclining posture and is an independent risk factor for multiple causes of morbidity and mortality. A dose-response relationship has been demonstrated, whereby increasing sedentary time corresponds with increasing mortality rate. This study aimed to identify current levels of sedentary behaviour among General Practitioners (GPs), by examining and synthesising how sedentary behaviour has been measured in the primary care literature.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to identify studies relating to levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Searches were performed using Medline®, Embase®, PscycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, from inception of databases until January 2020. Articles were assessed for quality and bias, with extraction of relevant data.ResultsThe search criteria returned 1707 studies. 34 full texts were reviewed and 2 studies included in the final review. Both were cross-sectional surveys using self-reported estimation of sedentary time within the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Keohane et al. examined GP trainees and GP trainers in Ireland. 60% reported spending in excess of 7 hours sitting each day, 24% between 4 and 7 hours, and 16% less than or equal to 4 hours. Suija et al. examined female GPs in Estonia. The mean reported daily sitting time was 6 hours and 36 minutes, with 56% sitting for over 6 hours per day. Both studies were of satisfactory methodological quality but had a high risk of bias.ConclusionThere is a paucity of research examining current levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Objective data is needed to determine GPs’ current levels of sedentary behaviour, particularly in light of the increase in remote consulting as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

scholarly journals Sedentary Behaviour Among General Practitioners: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Mayne ◽  
Nigel D. Hart ◽  
Neil Heron
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Sitting Time ◽  
Dose Response Relationship ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Activity Questionnaire

Abstract BackgroundSedentary behaviour is when someone is awake, in a sitting, lying or reclining posture and is an independent risk factor for multiple causes of morbidity and mortality. A dose-response relationship has been demonstrated, whereby increasing sedentary time corresponds with increasing mortality rate. This study aimed to identify current levels of sedentary behaviour among General Practitioners (GPs), by examining and synthesising how sedentary behaviour has been defined and measured in the primary care literature.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to identify studies relating to levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Searches were performed using Medline®, Embase®, PscycINFO and Web of Science, from inception of databases until January 2020. Articles were assessed for quality and bias, with extractionof relevant data.ResultsThe search criteria returned 1707 studies. 34 full texts were reviewed and 2 studies included in the final review. Both were cross-sectional surveys using self-reported estimation of sedentary time within the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ).Keohane et al. examined GP trainees and GP trainers in Ireland. 60% reported spending in excess of 7 hours sitting each day, 24% between 4 and 7 hours, and 16% less than or equal to 4 hours. Suija et al. examined female GPs in Estonia. The mean reported daily sitting time was 6 hours and 36 minutes, with 56% sitting for over 6 hours per day. Both studies were of low methodological quality and high risk of bias.ConclusionThere is a paucity of research examining current levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Objective data is needed to determine GPs’ current levels of sedentary behaviour, in order to identify ways of reducing this, if possible, as well as facilitating better GP education for patients regarding reducing sedentary behaviour.

scholarly journals High Sedentary Behaviour and Low Physical Activity are Associated with Anxiety and Depression in Myanmar and Vietnam

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. 1251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Supa Pengpid ◽  
Karl Peltzer
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Anxiety And Depression ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
High Physical Activity ◽  
Chronic Disease Patients ◽  
General Physical ◽  
Activity Questionnaire

The study aimed to estimate independent and combined associations of sedentary behaviour and physical activity with anxiety and depression among chronic disease patients in Myanmar and Vietnam. The cross-sectional sample included 3201 chronic disease patients (median age 51 years, interquartile range 25) systematically recruited from primary care facilities in 2015. Sedentary time and physical activity were assessed with the General Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ). Overall, the prevalence of sedentary time per day was 51.3% < 4 h, 31.2% between 4 and 8 h, and 17.5% 8 or more hours a day), and 30.7% engaged in low physical activity, 50.0% moderate, and 23.6% high physical activity. The prevalence of anxiety and depression was 12.7% and 19.9%, respectively. In the final logistic regression model, adjusted for relevant confounders, higher sedentary time (≥8 h) did not increase the odds for anxiety or depression, but moderate to high physical activity decreased the odds for anxiety and depression. Combined regression analysis found that participants with both less than eight hours of sedentary time and moderate or high physical activity had significantly lower odds of having anxiety and depression. Findings suggest an independent and combined association between moderate or high physical activity and low sedentary time with anxiety and/or depression among chronic disease patients in Myanmar and Vietnam.

scholarly journals Sedentary behaviour levels in adults with an intellectual disability: a systematic review protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 57
Author(s):  
Louise Lynch ◽  
Mary McCarron ◽  
Philip McCallion ◽  
Eilish Burke
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intellectual Disability ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Rapid Assessment ◽  
Physical Activity Questionnaire ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Activity Questionnaire

Background: Sedentary behaviour contributes to non-communicable diseases, which account for almost 71% of world deaths. Of these, cardiovascular disease is one of the largest causes of preventable death. It is not yet fully understood what level of sedentary behaviour is safe. People with an intellectual disability have poorer health than the general population with higher rates of multi-morbidity, obesity and inactivity. There is a paucity of evidence on whether this poorer health is due to sedentary behaviour or physical inactivity. This systematic review will investigate the sedentary behaviour levels of adults with an intellectual disability. Method: The PRISMA-P framework will be applied to achieve high-quality articles. An extensive search will be conducted in Medline, Embase, psycINFO and Cinahl and grey literature sources. All articles will be independently reviewed by two reviewers and a third to resolve disputes. Initially, the articles will be reviewed by title and abstract and then the full article will be reviewed using stringent inclusion criteria. All article data will be summarised in a standardised tabular format. The National Institute of Health’s quality assessment tool will be used to assess article quality. GRADE will be used to assess the quality of the evidence. The primary outcome of interest is the prevalence of sedentary behaviour levels for people with an intellectual disability. The definition of sedentary behaviour to be used for the purposes of this study is: ‘low physical activity as identified by metabolic equivalent (MET) or step levels or as measured by the Rapid Assessment of Physical activity questionnaire (RAPA) or the International Physical Activity questionnaire (IPAQ) or sitting for more than 3 hours per day’. Conclusion: This systematic review will provide a critical insight into the prevalence of sedentary behaviour in adults with an intellectual disability.

The Prevalence of Human Papillomavirus in Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review

2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 437-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Inês Rosa ◽  
Geraldo Doneda Silva ◽  
Priscyla Waleska Targino de Azedo Simões ◽  
Meriene Viquetti Souza ◽  
Ana Paula Ronzani Panatto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Blot Hybridization ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Cross Sectional

ObjectiveWe performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) in ovarian cancer.MethodsA comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, LILACS, Grey literature and EMBASE was performed for articles published from January 1990 to March 2012. The following MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms were searched: “ovarian tumor” or “ovarian cancers” and “HPV” or “human papillomavirus.” Included were case-control and cross-sectional studies, prospective or retrospective, that evaluated clinical ovarian cancer and provided a clear description of the use of in situ hybridization, Southern blot hybridization, and polymerase chain reaction. The statistical analysis was performed using REVMAN 5.0.ResultsIn total, 24 primary studies were included in this meta-analysis. Studies from 11 countries on 3 continents contained data on HPV and ovarian cancer, including 889 subjects. Overall, the HPV prevalence in patients with ovarian cancer was 17.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.0%–20.0%). Human papillomavirus prevalence ranged from 4.0% (95% CI, 1.7%–6.3%) in Europe to 31.4% (95% CI, 26.9%–35.9%) in Asia. An aggregate of 4 case-control studies from Asia showed an odds ratio of 2.48 (95% CI, 0.64–9.57).ConclusionsWe found a high prevalence of HPV-positive DNA in ovarian cancer cases, but the role of HPV in ovarian cancer remains inconclusive. Further studies are needed to control case to answer this question.

Calprotectin as a Biomarker for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. 760-770 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mads Abildtrup ◽  
Gabrielle H. Kingsley ◽  
David L. Scott
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Longitudinal Data ◽  
Calcium Binding ◽  
Therapeutic Response ◽  
Original Data ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Objective.Calprotectin (myeloid-related protein 8/14), a heterodimeric complex of calcium-binding proteins, is expressed in granulocytes and monocytes. Calprotectin levels are high in synovial tissue, particularly in activated cells adjacent to the cartilage-pannus junction. This systematic review evaluates the use of calprotectin as an indicator of disease activity, therapeutic response, and prognosis in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods.Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library (1970–2013) were searched for studies containing original data from patients with RA in whom calprotectin levels were measured in plasma/serum and/or synovial fluid (SF). We included studies examining associations between calprotectin levels and clinical and laboratory assessments, disease progression, and therapeutic response. There were no restrictions for sample size, disease duration, or length of followup.Results.We evaluated 17 studies (1988–2013) with 1065 patients enrolled; 11 were cross-sectional and 8 had longitudinal designs with 2 studies reporting cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Systemic and SF levels of calprotectin were raised in RA. There was a wide range of levels and marked interstudy and intrastudy variability. Calprotectin levels were high in active disease and were particularly high in rheumatoid factor (RF)-positive patients. Levels fell with effective treatment. Longitudinal data showed that calprotectin was a significant and independent predictor of erosive progression and therapeutic responses, particularly in patients who received effective biological treatments.Conclusion.SF calprotectin levels are high, suggesting there is substantial local production by inflamed synovium. Blood calprotectin levels, though highly variable, are elevated in active RA and fall with effective therapy. High baseline calprotectin levels predict future erosive damage.

scholarly journals Socioeconomic Inequalities in Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour among the Chilean Population: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (18) ◽  
pp. 9722
Author(s):  
María Vega-Salas ◽  
Paola Caro ◽  
Laura Johnson ◽  
Miranda E. G. Armstrong ◽  
Angeliki Papadaki
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Socioeconomic Inequalities ◽  
Sitting Time ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Chilean Population

Socioeconomic inequalities in physical (in)activity and sedentary behaviours are key mediators in obesity and health socioeconomic inequalities. Considering the high and uneven obesity rates in Chile, this review aims to systematically assess the socioeconomic inequalities in physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) among the Chilean population from different age groups. Peer-reviewed and grey literature were searched from inception until 31st December 2019 in PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, Web of Sciences and LILACS. Publications in English and Spanish, from observational studies that reported the comparison of at least one indicator of PA or SB between at least two groups of different socioeconomic positions (SEP), from the general Chilean population, were included. Data searches, screening, extraction, and quality assessment, using the Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for observational studies, were conducted by two independent researchers. Seventeen articles (from 16 studies) met the inclusion criteria (14 cross-sectional; two cohort). Across these, quality was considered low, medium and high for 19%, 69% and 13%, respectively. Results showed consistent evidence for a lower leisure-time PA and sitting time, and higher physical inactivity among adults from the lower, compared to the highest, SEP groups. Associations between SEP and total PA, moderate-to-vigorous PA, low PA, and transport and work-related PA were inconsistent. These findings provide insights to public health and physical activity researchers and policymakers aiming to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in PA and SB in Chile and other countries.

scholarly journals Exploration of sedentary behaviour among general practitioners: A cross-sectional study

BJGP Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. BJGPO.2021.0196
Author(s):  
Richard S Mayne ◽  
Nigel D Hart ◽  
Mark A Tully ◽  
Jason J Wilson ◽  
Jan C Brønd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sitting Time ◽  
Health It ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cross Sectional Design ◽  
Study Participants

BackgroundSedentary behaviour, which may have increased among GPs due to increasing use of telemedicine, is associated with many illnesses and increased all-cause mortality.AimTo explore levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs and General Practice Specialty Trainees (GPSTs).Design & settingSequential, cross-sectional design (initial online sedentary behaviour questionnaire, subsequent thigh-worn accelerometer sub-study) of GPs and GPSTs in Northern Ireland.MethodSelf-reported questionnaire data were aggregated and compared with device-measured accelerometry data.ResultsData from 353 participants (17.7% of GPs and GPSTs in Northern Ireland) revealed doctors in general practice self-reported higher workday sedentary time (10.33 (SD =2.97) hours) than those in secondary care (7.9 (SD =3.43) hours) (MD 2.43 hours; P<0.001). An active workstation (eg, sit-stand desk), was used by 5.6% of participants in general practice, while 86.0% of those without one would consider using one in future. Active workstation users self-reported lower workday sedentary time (7.88 (SD =3.2) hours) than non-users (10.47 (SD =2.88) hours) (MD –2.58 hours, P=0.001). Accelerometer sub-study participants underestimated their workday sedentary time by 0.17 hours (95% CI –1.86, 2.20; P=0.865), and non-workday sedentary time by 2.67 hours (95% CI 0.99, 4.35; P=0.003). Most GPs (80.7%) reported increased workday sitting time compared to prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, while 87.0% would prefer less workday sitting time.ConclusionGPs have high levels of workday sedentary time, which may be detrimental to their health. It is imperative to develop methods to address sedentary behaviour among GPs on workdays, both for their own health and the health of their patients.

scholarly journals Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviors in People With Stroke Living in the Community: A Systematic Review

2014 ◽  
Vol 94 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Coralie English ◽  
Patricia J. Manns ◽  
Claire Tucak ◽  
Julie Bernhardt
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
Sitting Time ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Normative Values ◽  
Walking Ability ◽  
Sedentary Behaviors

Background Regular physical activity is vital for cardiovascular health. Time spent in sedentary behaviors (eg, sitting, lying down) also is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. The pattern in which sedentary time is accumulated is important—with prolonged periods of sitting time being particularly deleterious. People with stroke are at high risk for cardiovascular disease, including recurrent stroke. Purpose This systematic review aimed to update current knowledge of physical activity and sedentary behaviors among people with stroke living in the community. A secondary aim was to investigate factors associated with physical activity levels. Data Sources The data sources used were MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complimentary Medicine Database (AMED), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Study Selection Studies involving people with stroke living in the community and utilizing objective measures of physical activity or sedentary behaviors were included. Data Extraction Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked for accuracy by a second person. Data Synthesis Twenty-six studies, involving 983 participants, were included. The most common measure of activity was steps per day (22 studies), which was consistently reported as less than half of age-matched normative values. Only 4 studies reported on sedentary time specifically. No studies described the pattern by which sedentary behaviors were accumulated across the day. Walking ability, balance, and degree of physical fitness were positively associated with higher levels of physical activity. Limitations This review included only studies of people living in the community after stroke who were able to walk, and the majority of included participants were aged between 65 and 75 years of age. Conclusions Little is known about the time people with stroke spend being sedentary each day or the pattern in which sedentary time is accumulated. Studies using objective, reliable, and valid measures of sedentary time are needed to further investigate the effects of sedentary time on the health of people with stroke.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document