scholarly journals The Effects of Physical Education on Motor Competence in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Sports ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Håvard Lorås
Keyword(s):  
Physical Education ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Motor Skills ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Motor Competence ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Meta Analyses

Appropriate levels of motor competence are an integrated part of individuals’ health-related fitness, and physical education is proposed as an important context for developing a broad range of motor skills. The aim of the current study was to apply meta-analyses to assess the effectiveness of curriculum-based physical education on the development of the overall motor competence of children and adolescents. Studies were located by searching seven databases and included according to predefined criteria. Random effects models using the standardized effect size (Hedges’ g) were used to aggregate results, including an examination of heterogeneity and inconsistency. The meta-analysis included 20 studies, and a total of 38 effect sizes were calculated. A statistically significant improvement in motor competence following curriculum-based physical education compared to active control groups was observed in children and adolescents (g = −0.69, 95% CI −0.91 to −0.46, n = 23). Participants’ ages, total time for physical education intervention, and type of motor competence assessment did not appear to be statistically significant moderators of effect size. Physical education with various curricula can, therefore, increase overall motor competence in children and adolescents.

Effects of Different Movement Programs on Motor Competence: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. 657-666 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Jiménez-Díaz ◽  
Karla Chaves-Castro ◽  
Walter Salazar
Keyword(s):  
Physical Education ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Free Play ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Motor Competence ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Different Types ◽  
And Control ◽  
Difference Effect

Background: To use the meta-analytic approach to assess the effectiveness of different types of movement programs on motor competence (MC) in participants of all ages. Methods: Studies were retrieved by searching 13 databases and included when criteria were met. Studies were selected, and data were extracted by 2 authors. Random effects models using the standardized mean difference effect size (ES) were used to pool results. Risk of bias, heterogeneity, and inconsistency were examined. Results: Thirty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 374 ESs were calculated and partitioned into 4 groups (motor intervention, free play, physical education classes, and control group). Statistically significant improvements in MC were observed for the motor intervention (ES = 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18 to 1.82; n = 36), as well as for free play (ES = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.57; n = 5), physical education classes (ES = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.97; n = 15), and smaller statistically significant differences in MC were observed for the control groups (ES = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.31; n = 6). Conclusions: All 4 groups analyzed improved MC in children, adolescents, and young adults. However, motor interventions were superior to all other groups for improving MC.

Effectiveness of Forensic Assertive Community Treatment on Forensic and Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 009385482110614
Author(s):  
Marie-Hélène Goulet ◽  
Laura Dellazizzo ◽  
Clara Lessard-Deschênes ◽  
Alain Lesage ◽  
Anne G. Crocker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Assertive Community Treatment ◽  
Service Use ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Outpatient Service ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Program Success ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Meta Analyses

Given the increasing literature on forensic assertive community treatment (FACT), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the effectiveness of FACT among justice-involved individuals with severe mental illness. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Sixteen studies were included in the systematic review, six of which were included in the meta-analyses for a total of 1,246 participants. Mixed results regarding health-related outcomes were found. The pre-post FACT analysis and comparison with control groups did not yield significant results other than increased outpatient service use. Results on forensic outcomes were more compelling. Both the narrative review and the meta-analysis highlighted that FACT programs may improve justice outcomes such as the number of days spent in jail. More high quality and multisite randomized controlled trials are needed to consolidate findings. Further research is needed to examine other psychosocial factors related to FACT program success.

Can Reliance be Placed on a Single Meta-Analysis?

1990 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 405-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathaniel McConaghy
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Consistent Finding ◽  
Placebo Controls ◽  
Effect Of Treatment ◽  
Meta Analyses

Meta-analysis replaced statistical significance with effect size in the hope of resolving controversy concerning evaluation of treatment effects. Statistical significance measured reliability of the effect of treatment, not its efficacy. It was strongly influenced by the number of subjects investigated. Effect size as assessed originally, eliminated this influence but by standardizing the size of the treatment effect could distort it. Meta-analyses which combine the results of studies which employ different subject types, outcome measures, treatment aims, no-treatment rather than placebo controls or therapists with varying experience can be misleading. To ensure discussion of these variables meta-analyses should be used as an aid rather than a substitute for literature review. While meta-analyses produce contradictory findings, it seems unwise to rely on the conclusions of an individual analysis. Their consistent finding that placebo treatments obtain markedly higher effect sizes than no treatment hopefully will render the use of untreated control groups obsolete.

scholarly journals Internet- and Mobile-Based Interventions for Mental and Somatic Conditions in Children and Adolescents

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Domhardt ◽  
Lena Steubl ◽  
Harald Baumeister
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mental Healthcare ◽  
Quality Ratings ◽  
Meta Review ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract. This meta-review integrates the current meta-analysis literature on the efficacy of internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) for mental disorders and somatic diseases in children and adolescents. Further, it summarizes the moderators of treatment effects in this age group. Using a systematic literature search of PsycINFO and MEDLINE/PubMed, we identified eight meta-analyses (N = 8,417) that met all inclusion criteria. Current meta-analytical evidence of IMIs exists for depression (range of standardized mean differences, SMDs = .16 to .76; 95 % CI: –.12 to 1.12; k = 3 meta-analyses), anxiety (SMDs = .30 to 1.4; 95 % CI: –.53 to 2.44; k = 5) and chronic pain (SMD = .41; 95 % CI: .07 to .74; k = 1) with predominantly nonactive control conditions (waiting-list; placebo). The effect size for IMIs across mental disorders reported in one meta-analysis is SMD = 1.27 (95 % CI: .96 to 1.59; k = 1), the effect size of IMIs for different somatic conditions is SMD = .49 (95 % CI: .33 to .64; k = 1). Moderators of treatment effects are age (k = 3), symptom severity (k = 1), and source of outcome assessment (k = 1). Quality ratings with the AMSTAR-2-checklist indicate acceptable methodological rigor of meta-analyses included. Taken together, this meta-review suggests that IMIs are efficacious in some health conditions in youths, with evidence existing primarily for depression and anxiety so far. The findings point to the potential of IMIs to augment evidence based mental healthcare for children and adolescents.

scholarly journals Meta-Analysis of Sensorimotor Gating Deficits in Patients With Schizophrenia Evaluated by Prepulse Inhibition Test

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (6) ◽  
pp. 1482-1497
Author(s):  
Rodrigo San-Martin ◽  
Leonardo Andrade Castro ◽  
Paulo Rossi Menezes ◽  
Francisco José Fraga ◽  
Priscyla Waleska Simões ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prepulse Inhibition ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensorimotor Gating ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Meta Regression Analysis ◽  
High Level ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstracts Prepulse inhibition (PPI) of startle is an operational measure of sensorimotor gating that is often impaired in patients with schizophrenia. Despite the large number of studies, there is considerable variation in PPI outcomes reported. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating PPI impairment in patients with schizophrenia compared with healthy control subjects, and examined possible explanations for the variation in results between studies. Major databases were screened for observational studies comparing healthy subjects and patients with schizophrenia for the prepulse and pulse intervals of 60 and 120 ms as primary outcomes, ie, PPI-60 and PPI-120. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted and pooled using random effects models. We then estimated the mean effect size of these measures with random effects meta-analyses and evaluated potential PPI heterogeneity moderators, using sensitivity analysis and meta-regressions. Sixty-seven primary studies were identified, with 3685 healthy and 4290 patients with schizophrenia. The schizophrenia group showed reduction in sensorimotor gating for both PPI-60 (SMD = −0.50, 95% CI = [−0.61, −0.39]) and PPI-120 (SMD = −0.44, 95% CI = [−0.54, −0.33]). The sensitivity and meta-regression analysis showed that sample size, gender proportion, imbalance for gender, source of control group, and study continent were sources of heterogeneity (P < .05) for both PPI-60 and PPI-120 outcomes. Our findings confirm a global sensorimotor gating deficit in schizophrenia patients, with overall moderate effect size for PPI-60 and PPI-120. Methodological consistency should decrease the high level of heterogeneity of PPI results between studies.

scholarly journals Was Eysenck right after all? A reassessment of the effects of psychotherapy for adult depression

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Cuijpers ◽  
E. Karyotaki ◽  
M. Reijnders ◽  
D. D. Ebert
Keyword(s):  
Effect Size ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Minimal Important Difference ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Number Needed To Treat ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Problem Solving Therapy ◽  
Adult Depression ◽  
Meta Analyses

Aims.In the 1950s, Eysenck suggested that psychotherapies may not be effective at all. Twenty-five years later, the first meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials showed that the effects of psychotherapies were considerable and that Eysenck was wrong. However, since that time methods have become available to assess biases in meta-analyses.Methods.We examined the influence of these biases on the effects of psychotherapies for adult depression, including risk of bias, publication bias and the exclusion of waiting list control groups.Results.The unadjusted effect size of psychotherapies compared with control groups was g = 0.70 (limited to Western countries: g = 0.63), which corresponds to a number-needed-to-treat of 4.18. Only 23% of the studies could be considered as a low risk of bias. When adjusting for several sources of bias, the effect size across all types of therapies dropped to g = 0.31.Conclusions.These results suggest that the effects of psychotherapy for depression are small, above the threshold that has been suggested as the minimal important difference in the treatment of depression, and Eysenck was probably wrong. However, this is still not certain because we could not adjust for all types of bias. Unadjusted meta-analyses of psychotherapies overestimate the effects considerably, and for several types of psychotherapy for adult depression, insufficient evidence is available that they are effective because too few low-risk studies were available, including problem-solving therapy, interpersonal psychotherapy and behavioural activation.

scholarly journals Using collaboration networks to identify authorship bias in meta-analyses

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thiago C. Moulin ◽  
Olavo B. Amaral
Keyword(s):  
Effect Size ◽  
Research Group ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Collaboration Networks ◽  
Research Groups ◽  
Bias Effect ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Methodological Choices ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractMeta-analytic methods are powerful resources to summarize the existing evidence concerning a given research question, and are widely used in many academic fields. However, meta-analyses can be vulnerable to various sources of bias, which should be considered to avoid inaccuracies. Many of these sources can be related to study authorship, as both methodological choices and researcher bias may lead to deviations in results between different research groups. In this work, we describe a method to objectively attribute study authorship within a given meta-analysis to different research groups by using graph cluster analysis of collaboration networks. We then provide empirical examples of how the research group of origin can impact effect size in distinct types of meta-analyses, demonstrating how non-independence between within-group results can bias effect size estimates if uncorrected. Finally, we show that multilevel random-effects models using research group as a level of analysis can be a simple tool for correcting biases related to study authorship.

scholarly journals Problem-solving therapy for adult depression: An updated meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pim Cuijpers ◽  
Leonore de Wit ◽  
Annet Kleiboer ◽  
Eirini Karyotaki ◽  
David D. Ebert
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Problem Solving Therapy ◽  
Adult Depression ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Very High

AbstractBackgroundProblem-solving therapy (PST) is one of the best examined types of psychotherapy for adult depression. No recent meta-analysis has examined the effects of PST compared to control groups or to other treatments. We wanted to verify whether PST is effective, whether effects are comparable to those of other treatments, and whether we could identify the possible sources of high heterogeneity that was found in earlier meta-analyses.MethodsWe conducted systematic searches in bibliographical databases, including PubMed, PsycInfo, Embase and the Cochrane database of randomized trials.ResultsWe included 30 randomized controlled trials on PST (with 3530 patients), in which PST was compared to control conditions, with other therapies, and with pharmacotherapy. We could compare these 30 trials on PST also with 259 trials on other psychotherapies for adult depression. The effect size of PST versus control groups was g = 0.79 (0.57–1.01) with very high heterogeneity (I2 = 84; 95% CI: 77–88). The effect size from the 9 studies with low risk of bias was g = 0.34 (95% CI: 0.22–0.46) with low heterogeneity (I2 = 32; 95% CI: 0–68), which is comparable to the effects of other psychotherapies. PST was a little more effective than other therapies in direct comparisons, but that may be explained by the considerable number of studies with researcher allegiance towards PST. In meta-regression analyses of all controlled studies, no significant difference between PST and other therapies was found.ConclusionPST is probably an effective treatment for depression, with effect sizes that are small, but comparable to those found for other psychological treatments of depression.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document