scholarly journals Sedentary behaviour levels in adults with an intellectual disability: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 69
Author(s):  
Louise Lynch ◽  
Mary McCarron ◽  
Philip McCallion ◽  
Eilish Burke

Background: Sedentary behaviour (SB), which is characterised by low levels of energy expenditure, has been linked to increased cardio-metabolic risks, obesity and mortality, as well as cancer risk. No firm guidelines are established on safe levels of SB. Adults with an intellectual disability (ID) have poorer health than their counterparts in the general population with higher rates of multi-morbidity, inactivity, and obesity. The reasons for this health disparity are unclear however it is known that SB and overall inactivity contribute to poorer health. There is no clear picture of the levels of SB among individuals with ID therefore SB levels in this vulnerable population need to be examined. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the prevalence of sedentary behaviour in adults with an ID.   Methods: The PRISMA-P framework was applied to identify high quality articles. An extensive search was carried out in four databases and grey literature sources . In total, 1,972 articles were retrieved of which 48 articles went forward for full review after duplicate removal and screening by title and abstract. The National Institute of Health’s quality assessment tools were used to assess article quality. Two reviewers independently assessed each article. An excel spreadsheet was created to guide the data extraction process. The final review included 25 articles. A meta-analysis was completed using REVMAN.   Results: Different SB assessment types were identified in studies. These included steps, time, questionnaires, and screen time. Studies were heterogeneous. Observed daily steps per individual ranged from 44 to above 30,000, with an average of approximately 6,500 steps. Mean daily time spent in SBs was more than 60% of available time, with observed screen time of more than 3 hours.  Conclusion: There is a high prevalence of SB in adults with an intellectual disability.   [Registration no: Index CRD42020177225].

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 69
Author(s):  
Louise Lynch ◽  
Mary McCarron ◽  
Philip McCallion ◽  
Eilish Burke

Background: Sedentary behaviour (SB), which is characterised by low levels of energy expenditure, has been linked to increased cardio-metabolic risks, obesity and mortality, as well as cancer risk. No firm guidelines are established on safe levels of SB. Adults with an intellectual disability (ID) have poorer health than their counterparts in the general population with higher rates of multi-morbidity, inactivity, and obesity. The reasons for this health disparity are unclear however it is known that SB and overall inactivity contribute to poorer health. There is no clear picture of the levels of SB among individuals with ID therefore SB levels in this vulnerable population need to be examined. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the prevalence of sedentary behaviour in adults with an ID.   Methods: The PRISMA-P framework was applied to identify high quality articles. An extensive search was carried out in four databases and grey literature sources . In total, 1,972 articles were retrieved of which 48 articles went forward for full review after duplicate removal and screening by title and abstract. The National Institute of Health’s quality assessment tools were used to assess article quality. Two reviewers independently assessed each article. An excel spreadsheet was created to guide the data extraction process. The final review included 25 articles. A meta-analysis was completed using REVMAN.   Results: Different SB assessment types were identified in studies. These included steps, time, questionnaires, and screen time. Studies were heterogeneous. Observed daily steps per individual ranged from 44 to above 30,000, with an average of approximately 6,500 steps. Mean daily time spent in SBs was more than 60% of available time, with observed screen time of more than 3 hours.  Conclusion: There is a high prevalence of SB in adults with an intellectual disability.   [Registration no: Index CRD42020177225].


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e028109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Funbi Akinola ◽  
Rudzani Muloiwa ◽  
Gregory, D Hussey ◽  
Violette Dirix ◽  
Benjamin Kagina ◽  
...  

IntroductionGlobally, some studies show a resurgence of pertussis. The risks and benefits of using whole-cell pertussis (wP) or acellular pertussis (aP) vaccines in the control of the disease have been widely debated. Better control of pertussis will require improved understanding of the immune response to pertussis vaccines. Improved understanding and assessment of the immunity induced by pertussis vaccines is thus imperative. Several studies have documented different immunological outcomes to pertussis vaccination from an array of assays. We propose to conduct a systematic review of the different immunological assays and outcomes used in the assessment of the humoraland cell-mediated immune response following pertussis vaccination.Methods and analysisThe primary outcomes for consideration are quality and quantity of immune responses (humoral and cell-mediated) post-pertussis vaccination. Of interest as secondary outcomes are types of immunoassays used in assessing immune responses post-pertussis vaccination, types of biological samples used in assessing immune responses post-pertussis vaccination, as well as the types of antigens used to stimulate these samples during post-pertussis vaccination immune response assessments. Different electronic databases (including PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCO Host, Scopus and Web of Science) will be accessed for peer-reviewed published and grey literature evaluating immune responses to pertussis vaccines between 1990 and 2019. The quality of included articles will be assessed using standardised risk and quality assessment tools specific to the study design used in each article. Data extraction will be done using a data extraction form. The extracted data will be analysed using STATA V.14.0 and RevMan V.5.3 software. A subgroup analysis will be conducted based on the study population, type of vaccine (wP or aP) and type of immune response (cell-mediated or humoral). Guidelines for reporting systematic reviews in the revised 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement will be used in this study.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this study as it is a systematic review. We will only make use of data already available in the public space. Findings will be reported via publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific meetings and workshops.Trial registration numberCRD42018102455.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e047283
Author(s):  
Rosalind Gittins ◽  
Louise Missen ◽  
Ian Maidment

IntroductionThere is a growing concern about the misuse of over the counter (OTC) and prescription only medication (POM) because of the impact on physical and mental health, drug interactions, overdoses and drug-related deaths. These medicines include opioid analgesics, anxiolytics such as pregabalin and diazepam and antidepressants. This protocol outlines how a systematic review will be undertaken (during June 2021), which aims to examine the literature on the pattern of OTC and POM misuse among adults who are accessing substance misuse treatment services. It will include the types of medication being taken, prevalence and demographic characteristics of people who access treatment services.Methods and analysisAn electronic search will be conducted on the Cochrane, OVID Medline, Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science databases as well as grey literature. Two independent reviewers will conduct the initial title and abstract screenings, using predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion. If selected for inclusion, full-text data extraction will be conducted using a pilot-tested data extraction form. A third reviewer will resolve disagreements if consensus cannot be reached. Quality and risk of bias assessment will be conducted for all included studies. A qualitative synthesis and summary of the data will be provided. If possible, a meta-analysis with heterogeneity calculation will be conducted; otherwise, Synthesis Without Meta-analysis will be undertaken for quantitative data. The reporting of this protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Findings will be peer reviewed, published and shared verbally, electronically and in print, with interested clinicians and policymakers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020135216.


Author(s):  
Marília de Oliveira Crispim ◽  
Cândida Maria Rodrigues dos Santos ◽  
Iracema da Silva Frazão ◽  
Cecília Maria Farias de Queiroz Frazão ◽  
Rossana Carla Rameh de Albuquerque ◽  
...  

Objective: to identify the prevalence of suicidal behavior in young university students. Method: a systematic review with meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies based on the Joanna Briggs Institute proposal, and carried out in the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO and LILACS databases and in the Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, with no language or year restrictions. A total of 2,942 publications were identified. Selection, data extraction and methodological evaluation of the studies were performed by two independent researchers. The meta-analysis was performed considering the random effects model. Results: eleven articles were included in this review. The prevalence variation for suicidal ideation was from 9.7% to 58.3% and, for attempted suicide, it was from 0.7% to 14.7%. The meta-analysis showed a 27.1% prevalence for suicidal ideation in life, 14.1% for ideation in the last year, and 3.1% for attempted suicide in life. Conclusion: the high prevalence of suicidal behavior, even with the considerable heterogeneity of the studies, raises the need to implement interventions aimed at preventing suicide and promoting mental health, especially in the academic environment.


2016 ◽  
Vol 52 (5) ◽  
pp. 314-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine L Downing ◽  
Jill A Hnatiuk ◽  
Trina Hinkley ◽  
Jo Salmon ◽  
Kylie D Hesketh

Aim or objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of behavioural interventions that report sedentary behaviour outcomes during early childhood.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesAcademic Search Complete, CINAHL Complete, Global Health, MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus with Full Text and EMBASE electronic databases were searched in March 2016.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesInclusion criteria were: (1) published in a peer-reviewed English language journal; (2) sedentary behaviour outcomes reported; (3) randomised controlled trial (RCT) study design; and (4) participants were children with a mean age of ≤5.9 years and not yet attending primary/elementary school at postintervention.Results31 studies were included in the systematic review and 17 studies in the meta-analysis. The overall mean difference in screen time outcomes between groups was −17.12 (95% CI −28.82 to −5.42) min/day with a significant overall intervention effect (Z=2.87, p=0.004). The overall mean difference in sedentary time between groups was −18.91 (95% CI −33.31 to −4.51) min/day with a significant overall intervention effect (Z=2.57, p=0.01). Subgroup analyses suggest that for screen time, interventions of ≥6 months duration and those conducted in a community-based setting are most effective. For sedentary time, interventions targeting physical activity (and reporting changes in sedentary time) are more effective than those directly targeting sedentary time.Summary/conclusionsDespite heterogeneity in study methods and results, overall interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour in early childhood show significant reductions, suggesting that this may be an opportune time to intervene.Trial registration numberCRD42015017090.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 57
Author(s):  
Louise Lynch ◽  
Mary McCarron ◽  
Philip McCallion ◽  
Eilish Burke

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.


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e029311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isobel Marion Harris ◽  
Sophie Beese ◽  
David Moore

ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to evaluate the ability of risk tools to predict the future episodes of suicide/self-harm in adolescents.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 3 March 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesCohort studies, case–control studies and randomised controlled trials of adolescents aged 10–25 who had undergone risk assessment in a clinical setting following an episode of self-harm were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were grouped by tool and narrative synthesis undertaken, with studies appraised using a checklist combining the QUIPS (Quality In Prognosis Studies) and QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) tools.ResultsOf the 17 137 articles initially identified, 11 studies evaluating 10 separate tools were included. The studies varied in setting, population and outcome measure. The majority of the studies were rated as having an unclear risk of bias, and meta-analysis was not possible due to high variability between studies.The ability of the tools to correctly identify those adolescents going on to make a self-harm/suicide attempt ranged from 27% (95% CI 10.7% to 50.2%) to 95.8% (95% CI 78.9% to 99.9%). A variety of metrics were provided for 1–10 points increases in various tools, for example, odds and HRs.ConclusionsThis systematic review is the first to explore the use of assessment tools in adolescents. The predictive ability of these tools varies greatly. No single tool is suitable for predicting a higher risk of suicide or self-harm in adolescent populations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017058686


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e032850
Author(s):  
Birhan Alemnew ◽  
Alebachew Fasil ◽  
Tesfahun Mulatu ◽  
Nigus Bililign ◽  
Setegn Esthetie ◽  
...  

IntroductionPodoconiosis is a non-filarial swelling of the lower extremity endemic in tropical regions, North America and India. The aetiology and pathophysiology of the disease remain unknown. We propose conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the burden and risk factors of podoconiosis in Ethiopia reported in studies from 2009 to 2019.Methods and analysisWe will search the following electronic databases: PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, Hinari, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ISI (Web of Science) and Google Scholar. Medical subject headings will be used to extensively search relevant literature on electronic databases using related keywords such as epidemiology or prevalence, magnitude or burden, podoconiosis, and Ethiopia. Grey literature and manual search will also be performed to retrieve unindexed research articles. Two reviewers will screen all retrieved articles, conduct data extraction and then critically appraise all identified studies. We will analyse data using STATA V.14 statistical software. We will demonstrate pooled estimates of podoconiosis and associated factors with effect size and 95% CI. The presence of heterogeneity among studies will be examined by forest plot as well as the I2heterogeneity test. Potential causes of heterogeneity will be explored by carrying out sensitivity and subgroup analyses. The presence of publication bias will also be examined by observing funnel plots and objectively by Egger’s regression test. If the funnel plot is asymmetric and/or Egger’s test was found to be statistically significant (p<0.05), the trim and fill (Duval and Tweedie’s) analysis will be performed.Ethics and disseminationThe study will use publicly available data and will not identify the authors of the publication by name. In light of these and as has been indicated, research ethics clearance is not required for evidence syntheses in such reviews. The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at national and international conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019127459.


BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e017373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rishi Mandavia ◽  
Alec Knight ◽  
John Phillips ◽  
Elias Mossialos ◽  
Peter Littlejohns ◽  
...  

ObjectiveThe regulation of surgical implants is vital to patient safety, and there is an international drive to establish registries for all implants. Hearing loss is an area of unmet need, and industry is targeting this field with a growing range of surgically implanted hearing devices. Currently, there is no comprehensive UK registry capturing data on these devices; in its absence, it is difficult to monitor safety, practices and effectiveness. A solution is developing a national registry of all auditory implants. However, developing and maintaining a registry faces considerable challenges. In this systematic review, we aimed to identify the essential features of a successful surgical registry.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis recommendations. A comprehensive search of the Medline and Embase databases was conducted in November 2016 using the Ovid Portal. Inclusion criteria were: publications describing the design, development, critical analysis or current status of a national surgical registry. All registry names identified in the screening process were noted and searched in the grey literature. Available national registry reports were reviewed from registry websites. Data were extracted using a data extraction table developed by thematic analysis. Extracted data were synthesised into a structured narrative.ResultsSixty-nine publications were included. The fundamentals to successful registry development include: steering committee to lead and oversee the registry; clear registry objectives; planning for initial and long-term funding; strategic national collaborations among key stakeholders; dedicated registry management team; consensus meetings to agree registry dataset; established data processing systems; anticipating challenges; and implementing strategies to increase data completion. Patient involvement and awareness of legal factors should occur throughout the development process.ConclusionsThis systematic review provides robust knowledge that can be used to inform the successful development of any UK surgical registry. It also provides a methodological framework for international surgical registry development.


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e035360
Author(s):  
Britzer Paul Vincent ◽  
Gurch Randhawa ◽  
Erica Cook

IntroductionThe need for organs is comparatively higher among people of Indian origin due to the higher prevalence of end-stage organ failure. In spite of the higher need, they have a lower number of organ donors. Studies have been carried out among people of Indian origin living globally to understand the reasons for the low donation rate, but there has been no systematic review that has integrated all of these studies to synthesise the current literature. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to examine the barriers towards organ donor registration and consent among Indians living globally.Methods and analysisA systematic search will be conducted using the following relevant databases namely CINHAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed Central, Global Health and Grey literature. Studies from 1994 that satisfy our inclusion criteria will be included. Two reviewers will conduct the screening, data extraction and quality assessment of the studies; in event of any disagreement between the two reviewers at any stage, the third reviewer will reconcile any disagreements and consensus will be made.Ethics and disseminationAs this study includes only secondary data, ethical approval for secondary data usage has been sought. This study will use Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines to report and the study outcomes will be disseminated through a relevant peer-review publication, related conferences and also to various non-governmental organisations globally which are working with this particular community; following which further research can be developed based on this evidence and also helps in building a culturally competent strategy.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019155274.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document