Dataset Information

Effectiveness of physical activity promotion based in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To determine whether trials of physical activity promotion based in primary care show sustained effects on physical activity or fitness in sedentary adults, and whether exercise referral interventions are more effective than other interventions.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Data sources

Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, the Cochrane Library, and article reference lists.

Review methods

Review of randomised controlled trials of physical activity promotion in sedentary adults recruited in primary care, with minimum follow-up of 12 months, reporting physical activity or fitness (or both) as outcomes, and using intention to treat analyses. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, appraised risk of bias, and extracted data. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using a random effects model.

Results

We included 15 trials (n=8745). Most interventions took place in primary care, included health professionals in delivery, and involved advice or counselling given face to face or by phone (or both) on multiple occasions. Only three trials investigated exercise referral. In 13 trials presenting self reported physical activity, we saw small to medium positive intervention effects at 12 months (odds ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.73; standardised mean difference 0.25, 0.11 to 0.38). The number needed to treat with an intervention for one additional sedentary adult to meet internationally recommended levels of activity at 12 months was 12 (7 to 33). In four trials reporting cardiorespiratory fitness, a medium positive effect at 12 months was non-significant (standardised mean difference 0.51, -0.18 to 1.20). Three trials of exercise referral found small non-significant effects on self reported physical activity at 12 months (odds ratio 1.38; 0.98 to 1.95; standardised mean difference 0.20, -0.21 to 0.61).

Conclusions

Promotion of physical activity to sedentary adults recruited in primary care significantly increases physical activity levels at 12 months, as measured by self report. We found insufficient evidence to recommend exercise referral schemes over advice or counselling interventions. Primary care commissioners should consider these findings while awaiting further trial evaluation of exercise referral schemes and other primary care interventions, with longer follow-up and use of objective measures of outcome.

SUBMITTER: Orrow G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3312793 | 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:ObjectiveTo examine the effectiveness of behavioural weight management interventions for adults with obesity delivered in primary care.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Eligibility criteria for selection of studiesRandomised controlled trials of behavioural weight management interventions for adults with a body mass index ≥25 delivered in primary care compared with no treatment, attention control, or minimal intervention and weight change at ≥12 months follow-up.Data sourcesTrials from a previous systematic review were extracted and the search completed using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, PubMed, and PsychINFO from 1 January 2018 to 19 August 2021.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analyses were conducted with random effects models, and a pooled mean difference for both weight (kg) and waist circumference (cm) were calculated.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was weight change from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcome was weight change from baseline to ≥24 months. Change in waist circumference was assessed at 12 months.Results34 trials were included: 14 were additional, from a previous review. 27 trials (n=8000) were included in the primary outcome of weight change at 12 month follow-up. The mean difference between the intervention and comparator groups at 12 months was -2.3 kg (95% confidence interval -3.0 to -1.6 kg, I2=88%, P<0.001), favouring the intervention group. At ≥24 months (13 trials, n=5011) the mean difference in weight change was -1.8 kg (-2.8 to -0.8 kg, I2=88%, P<0.001) favouring the intervention. The mean difference in waist circumference (18 trials, n=5288) was -2.5 cm (-3.2 to -1.8 cm, I2=69%, P<0.001) in favour of the intervention at 12 months.ConclusionsBehavioural weight management interventions for adults with obesity delivered in primary care are effective for weight loss and could be offered to members of the public.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021275529.

Project description:BackgroundInterventions that provide pregnant women with opportunities to access and participate in physical activity have been shown to be beneficial to their health. Much of this evidence however has been based on self-reported physical activity data, which may be prone to inflated effects due to recall bias and social desirability bias. No previous synthesis of randomised controlled trials has assessed the effectiveness of these interventions using only device measured data, to assess their health benefits more accurately in pregnant women. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to address this evidence gap.Data sourcesCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, SportDiscus, APA PsycINFO, Embase and Web of Science databases were queried from inception up to December 2, 2021. An updated search of PubMed was conducted on May 16, 2022.Study eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials that recruited pregnant women, participating in any physical activity intervention (excluding interventions aimed entirely at body conditioning), compared with standard antenatal care (comparators), using device-measured total physical activity as an outcome were eligible for inclusion.Methods3144 titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility, and 18 met the inclusion criteria. Data were analysed using random effect models, (standardised mean difference and mean difference), using data from baseline to last available follow-up (primary end point), and until between 24 to 30 weeks gestation. Gestational weight gain was also assessed at these timepoints in the included trials.ResultsNo significant differences between the groups were found for total physical activity at last available follow-up or 24 to 30 weeks gestation (95% CI 0.03 to 0.27, p = 0.10: 95% CI -0.05 to 0.33, p = 0.15) respectively. On average, pregnant women randomised to a physical activity intervention completed 435 and 449 more steps per day than comparators at last available follow-up and at 24 to 30 weeks gestation (95% CI -0.5-870.6, p = 0.05: 95% CI 5.5-892.7, p = 0.05) respectively. Intervention participants also gained 0.69 kg less (95% CI -1.30 to -0.08, p = 0.03) weight than comparators.ConclusionBased on device-measured data, interventions to promote physical activity during pregnancy have small but important effects on increasing physical activity and managing excessive gestational weight gain.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.

Project description:BackgroundStudies suggest that the Patient-Centred Medical Home (PCMH) model of primary care is more effective than standard care for improving clinical outcomes in patients with chronic diseases (non-communicable diseases), but the strength of the evidence base is unclear. The aim of the proposed systematic review is to generate a current synthesis of relevant studies on the effectiveness of PCMH model of primary care versus standard care in chronic disease management.MethodsElectronic databases such as MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus will be searched using predefined search terms for PCMH, primary care, and chronic diseases for articles published up to November 2018. Reference lists of included articles and relevant reviews will also be hand searched. This review will consider eligible randomised controlled trials and controlled trials against predetermined criteria including two or more principles of PCMH model endorsed by Australian Medical Association. Data extraction will be performed independently by two reviewers, and retrieved papers will be assessed for quality using JBI Critical Appraisal Tools. Where possible, quantitative data will be pooled in statistical meta-analysis using the R packages 'Meta' and 'metafor'. Effect sizes will be expressed as odds ratio (for categorical data) and weighted mean differences (for continuous data) and their 95% confidence intervals will be calculated for meta-analysis; robustness will be explored using sensitivity analysis. Heterogeneity will be assessed narratively and statistically using the Q statistics and visualised using Baujat plots including subgroup or sensitivity analyses techniques where possible. Where statistical pooling is not possible, the findings will be presented narratively.DiscussionThe findings of the proposed systematic review will provide the highest level of evidence to date on the effectiveness of the PCMH model versus standard primary care in chronic disease management. We believe that our findings will inform patients, primary care providers, and public health administrators and policy-makers on the benefits and risks of PCMH model of care.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018085378.

Project description:BackgroundPsychiatric patients have more physical health problems and much shorter life expectancies compared to the general population, due primarily to premature cardiovascular disease. A multi-causal model which includes a higher prevalence of risk factors has provided a valid explanation. It takes into consideration not only risks such as gender, age, and family history that are inherently non-modifiable, but also those such as obesity, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia that are modifiable through behavioural changes and improved care. Thus, it is crucial to focus on factors that increase cardiovascular risk. Obesity in particular has been associated with both the lifestyle habits and the side effects of antipsychotic medications. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims at collecting and updating available evidence on the efficacy of non-pharmacological health promotion programmes for psychotic patients in randomised clinical trials.MethodsWe systematically reviewed the randomised controlled trials from 1990 onward, in which psychoeducational and/or cognitive-behavioural interventions aimed at weight loss or prevention of weight gain in patients with psychosis had been compared to treatment as usual. We carried out a meta-analysis and pooled the results of the studies with Body Mass Index as primary outcome.ResultsThe results of the meta-analysis show an effect toward the experimental group. At the end of the intervention phase there is a -0.98 kg/m(2) reduction in the mean Body Mass Index of psychotic subjects. Notably, prevention studies with individual psychoeducational programmes that include diet and/or physical activity seem to have the highest impact.ConclusionsWhen compared with treatment as usual in psychotic patients, preventive and individual lifestyle interventions that include diet and physical activity generally prove to be effective in reducing weight. Physical screening and monitoring programmes are well accepted by patients and can be implemented in a variety of settings. A weight loss of 0.98 points in the Body Mass Index corresponds to a loss of 3.12% of the initial weight. This percentage is below the 5% to 10% weight loss deemed sufficient to improve weight-related complications such as hypertension, type II diabetes, and dyslipidemia. However, it is reported that outcomes associated with metabolic risk factors may have greater health implications than weight changes alone. Therefore, in addition to weight reduction, the assessment of metabolic parameters to monitor other independent risk factors should also be integrated into physical health promotion and management in people with mental disorders.

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effects of physical activity in adult patients after completion of main treatment related to cancer.DesignMeta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with data extraction and quality assessment performed independently by two researchers.Data sourcesPubmed, CINAHL, and Google Scholar from the earliest possible year to September 2011. References from meta-analyses and reviews.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials that assessed the effects of physical activity in adults who had completed their main cancer treatment, except hormonal treatment.ResultsThere were 34 randomised controlled trials, of which 22 (65%) focused on patients with breast cancer, and 48 outcomes in our meta-analysis. Twenty two studies assessed aerobic exercise, and four also included resistance or strength training. The median duration of physical activity was 13 weeks (range 3-60 weeks). Most control groups were considered sedentary or were assigned no exercise. Based on studies on patients with breast cancer, physical activity was associated with improvements in insulin-like growth factor-I, bench press, leg press, fatigue, depression, and quality of life. When we combined studies on different types of cancer, we found significant improvements in body mass index (BMI), body weight, peak oxygen consumption, peak power output, distance walked in six minutes, right handgrip strength, and quality of life. Sources of study heterogeneity included age, study quality, study size, and type and duration of physical activity. Publication bias did not alter our conclusions.ConclusionsPhysical activity has positive effects on physiology, body composition, physical functions, psychological outcomes, and quality of life in patients after treatment for breast cancer. When patients with cancer other than breast cancer were also included, physical activity was associated with reduced BMI and body weight, increased peak oxygen consumption and peak power output, and improved quality of life.

Project description:This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the effects of physical exercise cum cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) on alleviating pain intensity, functional disabilities, and mood/mental symptoms in those suffering with chronic musculoskeletal pain. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMEd, PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched to identify relevant randomised controlled trials from inception to 31 December 2018. The inclusion criteria were: (a) adults ?18 years old with chronic musculoskeletal pain ?3 months, (b) randomised controlled design, (c) a treatment arm consisting of physical intervention and CBT combined, (d) the comparison arm being waitlist, usual care or other non-pharmacological interventions such as physical exercise or CBT alone, and (e) outcomes including pain intensity, pain-related functional disabilities (primary outcomes), or mood/mental symptoms (secondary outcome). The exclusion criteria were: (a) the presence of comorbid mental illnesses other than depression and anxiety and (b) non-English publication. The search resulted in 1696 records and 18 articles were selected for review. Results varied greatly across studies, with most studies reporting null or small effects but a few studies reporting very large effects up to 2-year follow-up. Pooled effect sizes (Hedges' g) were ~1.00 for pain intensity and functional disability, but no effect was found for mood/mental symptoms. The effects were mainly driven by several studies reporting unusually large differences between the exercise cum CBT intervention and exercise alone. When these outliers were removed, the effect on pain intensity disappeared at post-intervention while a weak effect (g = 0.21) favouring the combined intervention remained at follow-up assessment. More consistent effects were observed for functional disability, though the effects were small (g = 0.26 and 0.37 at post-intervention and follow-up respectively). More importantly, the value of adding CBT to exercise interventions is questionable, as consistent benefits were not seen. The clinical implications and directions for future research are discussed.