Dataset Information

Effect of exercise referral schemes in primary care on physical activity and improving health outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the impact of exercise referral schemes on physical activity and health outcomes. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and ongoing trial registries up to October 2009. We also checked study references. Study selection Design: randomised controlled trials or non-randomised controlled (cluster or individual) studies published in peer review journals.

Population

sedentary individuals with or without medical diagnosis. Exercise referral schemes defined as: clear referrals by primary care professionals to third party service providers to increase physical activity or exercise, physical activity or exercise programmes tailored to individuals, and initial assessment and monitoring throughout programmes. Comparators: usual care, no intervention, or alternative exercise referral schemes.

Results

Eight randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, comparing exercise referral schemes with usual care (six trials), alternative physical activity intervention (two), and an exercise referral scheme plus a self determination theory intervention (one). Compared with usual care, follow-up data for exercise referral schemes showed an increased number of participants who achieved 90-150 minutes of physical activity of at least moderate intensity per week (pooled relative risk 1.16, 95% confidence intervals 1.03 to 1.30) and a reduced level of depression (pooled standardised mean difference -0.82, -1.28 to -0.35). Evidence of a between group difference in physical activity of moderate or vigorous intensity or in other health outcomes was inconsistent at follow-up. We did not find any difference in outcomes between exercise referral schemes and the other two comparator groups. None of the included trials separately reported outcomes in individuals with specific medical diagnoses. Substantial heterogeneity in the quality and nature of the exercise referral schemes across studies might have contributed to the inconsistency in outcome findings. Conclusions Considerable uncertainty remains as to the effectiveness of exercise referral schemes for increasing physical activity, fitness, or health indicators, or whether they are an efficient use of resources for sedentary people with or without a medical diagnosis.

SUBMITTER: Pavey TG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3209555 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Studies had not yet overcome the most relevant barriers to physical activity (PA) adherence. An exercise referral scheme (ERS) with mechanisms to promote social support might enhance adherence to PA in the long term. SETTING:A randomised controlled trial in 10 primary care centres in Spain. OBJECTIVE:To assess the effectiveness of a primary care-based ERS linked to municipal resources and enhancing social support and social participation in establishing adherence to PA among adults over a 15-month period. PARTICIPANTS:422 insufficiently active participants suffering from at least one chronic condition were included. 220 patients (69.5 (8.4) years; 136 women) were randomly allocated to the intervention group (IG) and 202 (68.2 (8.9) years; 121 women) to the control group (CG). INTERVENTIONS:The IG went through a 12-week standardised ERS linked to community resources and with inclusion of mechanisms to enhance social support. The CG received usual care from their primary care practice. OUTCOMES:The main outcome measure was self-report PA with the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and secondary outcomes included stages of change and social support to PA practice. DATA COLLECTION:Participant-level data were collected via questionnaires at baseline, and at months 3, 9 and 15. BLINDING:The study statistician and research assessors were blinded to group allocation. RESULTS:Compared with usual care, follow-up data at month 15 for the ERS group showed a significant increase of self-reported PA (IG: 1373±1845?metabolic equivalents (MET) min/week, n=195; CG: 919±1454?MET min/week, n=144; P=0.009). Higher adherence (in terms of a more active stage of change) was associated with higher PA level at baseline and with social support. CONCLUSIONS:Prescription from ordinary primary care centres staff yielded adherence to PA practice in the long term. An innovative ERS linked to community resources and enhancing social support had shown to be sustainable in the long term. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT00714831; Results.

Project description:BackgroundThe comparative analysis of the effect of several doses of statins against different intensities of physical exercise on arterial stiffness (a measure of cardiovascular risk) could shed light for clinicians on which method is most effective in preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD) and be used to inform shared decision-making between doctors and patients. This study was aimed at analyzing the effect, in high cardiometabolic risk patients, of different statins doses and exercise intensities on arterial stiffness (a measure of cardiovascular risk) by integrating all available direct and indirect evidence in network meta-analyses.Methods and findingsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science databases from their inception to February 28, 2020; for unpublished trials, we also searched ClinicalTrials.gov. We searched for studies concerning the effect of statins or physical exercise on arterial stiffness, measured by pulse wave velocity (PWV). For methodological quality assessment, Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias (RoB2) was used. A network geometry graph was used to assess the strength of the evidence. Comparative evaluation of the interventions effect was performed by conducting a standard pairwise meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) for direct and indirect comparisons between interventions and control/nonintervention. A total of 22 studies were included in the analyses (18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 4 nonrandomized experimental studies), including 1,307 patients with high cardiometabolic risk from Asia (3 studies), Oceania (2 studies), Europe (10 studies), North America (5 studies), and South America (2 studies). The overall risk of bias assessed with RoB2 was high in all included studies. For standard pairwise meta-analysis and NMA, high-intensity exercise versus control (mean difference (MD) -0.56; 95% CI: -1.01, -0.11; p = 0.015 and -0.62; 95% CI: -1.20, -0.04; p = 0.038, respectively) and moderate statin dose versus control (MD -0.80, 95% CI: -1.59, -0.01; p = 0.048 and -0.73, 95% CI: -1.30, -0.15; p = 0.014, respectively) showed significant MDs. When nonrandomized experimental studies were excluded, the effect on high-intensity exercise versus control and moderate statin dose versus was slightly modified. The main limitation of this study was that the magnitude of the effect of the exercise interventions could be underestimated due to regression toward the mean bias because the baseline cardiometabolic risk profile of patients in the physical exercise intervention trials was healthier than those in the statins ones; consequently, more modest improvements in physical exercise interventions compared to statins interventions can be expected. Additionally, we might consider as limitations the small study sizes, the heterogeneous patient groups, the focus on a proxy endpoint (PWV), and the high risk of bias.ConclusionsIn this NMA, we found that although many patients could benefit from statins for reducing CVD risk, our results support that, considering the beneficial effects of high-intensity exercise on arterial stiffness, it would be worthwhile to refocus our attention on this type of exercise as an effective tool for the prevention of CVD.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019123120.

Project description:BackgroundFew studies have examined primary care management for acute sciatica, including referral to physical therapy.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether early referral to physical therapy reduced disability more than usual care (UC) alone for patients with acute sciatica.DesignRandomized controlled clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02391350).Setting2 health care systems in Salt Lake City, Utah.Patients220 adults aged 18 to 60 years with sciatica of less than 90 days' duration who were making an initial primary care consultation.InterventionAll participants received imaging and medication at the discretion of the primary care provider before enrollment. A total of 110 participants randomly assigned to UC were provided 1 session of education, and 110 participants randomly assigned to early physical therapy (EPT) were provided 1 education session and then referred for 4 weeks of physical therapy, including exercise and manual therapy.MeasurementsThe primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (OSW) score after 6 months. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity, patient-reported treatment success, health care use, and missed workdays.ResultsParticipants in the EPT group had greater improvement from baseline to 6 months for the primary outcome (relative difference, -5.4 points [95% CI, -9.4 to -1.3 points]; P = 0.009). The OSW and several secondary outcomes favored EPT after 4 weeks. After 1 year, between-group differences favored EPT for the OSW (relative difference, -4.8 points [CI, -8.9 to -0.7 points]) and back pain intensity (relative difference, -1.0 points [CI, -1.6 to -0.4 points]). The EPT group was more likely to self-report treatment success after 1 year (45.2%) than the UC group (27.6%) (relative risk, 1.6 [CI, 1.1 to 2.4]). There were no significant differences in health care use or missed workdays.LimitationThe patients and providers were unblinded, and specific physical therapy interventions responsible for effects could not be determined.ConclusionReferral from primary care to physical therapy for recent-onset sciatica improved disability and other outcomes compared with UC.Primary funding sourceAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality.