scholarly journals A Sex/Gender Perspective on Interventions to Reduce Sedentary Behaviour in Girls and Boys: Results of the genEffects Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (14) ◽  
pp. 5231
Author(s):  
Catherina Vondung ◽  
Yolanda Demetriou ◽  
Anne K. Reimers ◽  
Annegret Schlund ◽  
Jens Bucksch
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Interaction Analysis ◽  
Gender Effects ◽  
Gender Analysis ◽  
Intervention Effect ◽  
Gender Interaction ◽  
Gender Information ◽  
Intervention Planning ◽  
Randomised Controlled

This systematic review aims to evaluate the extent of sex/gender consideration and effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce sedentary behaviour (SB). We searched for randomised or non-randomised controlled trials with the outcome SB and a sex/gender analysis in eleven electronic databases. Sixty-seven studies were included. Sex/gender considerations were qualitatively rated. Sex/gender was reported separately in 44.8% of studies, 14.9% of studies conducted a sex/gender interaction analysis, and 19.4% enrolled either girls or boys. SB was significantly reduced for girls in 16.4%, for boys in 11.9% and for both in 13.4%. No sex/gender intervention effect was found in 38.8%. According to the qualitative rating, studies without significant sex/gender effects reached “detailed” rating twice as often as studies finding a significant intervention effect for either girls or boys, or both. Overall, no clear pattern according to the qualitative rating and in terms of intervention effectiveness can be drawn. The results reveal a lack of sufficient sex/gender information in intervention planning and delivery. Further research should consider analysing sex/gender intervention effects as well as consider sex/gender inclusive intervention planning and delivery.

scholarly journals Interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour in 0–5-year-olds: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2016 ◽  
Vol 52 (5) ◽  
pp. 314-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine L Downing ◽  
Jill A Hnatiuk ◽  
Trina Hinkley ◽  
Jo Salmon ◽  
Kylie D Hesketh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Early Childhood ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Screen Time ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Intervention Effect ◽  
English Language Journal ◽  
Randomised Controlled

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.

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 Do Intervention Studies to Promote Physical Activity and Reduce Sedentary Behavior in Children and Adolescents Take Sex/Gender Into Account? A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 461-468
Author(s):  
Annegret Schlund ◽  
Anne K. Reimers ◽  
Jens Bucksch ◽  
Catherina Brindley ◽  
Carolin Schulze ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Sedentary Behavior ◽  
Physical Inactivity ◽  
Intervention Studies ◽  
Interaction Analysis ◽  
Intervention Development ◽  
Gender Effects ◽  
Intervention Planning ◽  
Gender Influences ◽  
Gender Differences And Similarities

Background: Physical inactivity is often reported in youth and differs among boys and girls. The aim of this study is to assess sex/gender considerations in intervention studies promoting physical activity and reducing sedentary behavior in youth using a sex/gender checklist. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in August 2018 to identify all relevant controlled trials. Studies screened must have reported a quantified measure of physical activity and/or sedentary behavior, and identified participants by sex/gender at baseline. For evaluation of the sex/gender consideration, the authors used a sex/gender checklist developed by expert consensus. Results: The authors reviewed sex/gender considerations in all aspects of intervention development, implementation, and evaluation in 217 studies. Sex/gender aspects were only rudimentarily taken into account, most frequently during statistical analyses, such as stratification or interaction analysis. Conclusions: Sex/gender effects are not sufficiently reported. To develop guidelines that are more inclusive of all girls and boys, future interventions need to document sex/gender differences and similarities, and explore whether sex/gender influences different phases of intervention programs. The newly developed sex/gender checklist can hereby be used as a tool and guidance to adequately consider sex/gender in the several steps of intervention planning, implementation, and evaluation.

Is there Sex-related Outcome Difference According to oral P2Y12 Inhibitors in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 107,126 Patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-203
Author(s):  
Oliver Brown ◽  
Jennifer Rossington ◽  
Gill Louise Buchanan ◽  
Giuseppe Patti ◽  
Angela Hoye
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
Cardiovascular Death ◽  
P2y12 Inhibitors ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background and Objectives: The majority of patients included in trials of anti-platelet therapy are male. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether, in addition to aspirin, P2Y12 blockade is beneficial in both women and men with acute coronary syndromes. </P><P> Methods: Electronic databases were searched and nine eligible randomised controlled studies were identified that had sex-specific clinical outcomes (n=107,126 patients). Risk Ratios (RR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated for a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke (MACE), and a safety endpoint of major bleeding for each sex. Indirect comparison analysis was performed to statistically compare ticagrelor against prasugrel. </P><P> Results: Compared to aspirin alone, clopidogrel reduced MACE in men (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.92; p=0.003), but was not statistically significant in women (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.02, p=0.08). Clopidogrel therapy significantly increased bleeding in women but not men. Compared to clopidogrel, prasugrel was beneficial in men (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.97; p=0.02) but not statistically significant in women (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.06; p=0.30); ticagrelor reduced MACE in both men (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.94; p=0.001) and women (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.97; p=0.02). Indirect comparison demonstrated no significant difference between ticagrelor and prasugrel in either sex. Compared to clopidogrel, ticagrelor and prasugrel increased bleeding risk in both women and men. </P><P> Conclusion: In summary, in comparison to monotherapy with aspirin, P2Y12 inhibitors reduce MACE in women and men. Ticagrelor was shown to be superior to clopidogrel in both sexes. Prasugrel showed a statistically significant benefit only in men; however indirect comparison did not demonstrate superiority of ticagrelor over prasugrel in women.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document