Dataset Information

Is there evidence that walking groups have health benefits? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the health benefits of outdoor walking groups.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of walking group interventions examining differences in commonly used physiological, psychological and well-being outcomes between baseline and intervention end.

Data sources

Seven electronic databases, clinical trial registers, grey literature and reference lists in English language up to November 2013.

Eligibility criteria

Adults, group walking outdoors with outcomes directly attributable to the walking intervention.

Results

Forty-two studies were identified involving 1843 participants. There is evidence that walking groups have wide-ranging health benefits. Meta-analysis showed statistically significant reductions in mean difference for systolic blood pressure -3.72?mm?Hg (-5.28 to -2.17) and diastolic blood pressure -3.14?mm?Hg (-4.15 to -2.13); resting heart rate -2.88?bpm (-4.13 to -1.64); body fat -1.31% (-2.10 to -0.52), body mass index -0.71?kg/m(2) (-1.19 to -0.23), total cholesterol -0.11?mmol/L (-0.22 to -0.01) and statistically significant mean increases in VO(2max) of 2.66?mL/kg/min (1.67-3.65), the SF-36 (physical functioning) score 6.02 (0.51 to 11.53) and a 6?min walk time of 79.6?m (53.37-105.84). A standardised mean difference showed a reduction in depression scores with an effect size of -0.67 (-0.97 to -0.38). The evidence was less clear for other outcomes such as waist circumference fasting glucose, SF-36 (mental health) and serum lipids such as high-density lipids. There were no notable adverse side effects reported in any of the studies.

Conclusions

Walking groups are effective and safe with good adherence and wide-ranging health benefits. They could be a promising intervention as an adjunct to other healthcare or as a proactive health-promoting activity.

SUBMITTER: Hanson S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4453623 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is there evidence that walking groups have health benefits? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hanson Sarah S Jones Andy A

British journal of sports medicine 20150119 11

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the health benefits of outdoor walking groups.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis of walking group interventions examining differences in commonly used physiological, psychological and well-being outcomes between baseline and intervention end.<h4>Data sources</h4>Seven electronic databases, clinical trial registers, grey literature and reference lists in English language up to November 2013.<h4>Eligibility criteria</h4>Adults, group walking outdoors wit ...[more]

PMID: 25601182

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe health benefits of greenspaces have demanded the attention of policymakers since the 1800s. Although much evidence suggests greenspace exposure is beneficial for health, there exists no systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesise and quantify the impact of greenspace on a wide range of health outcomes.ObjectiveTo quantify evidence of the impact of greenspace on a wide range of health outcomes.MethodsWe searched five online databases and reference lists up to January 2017. Studies satisfying a priori eligibility criteria were evaluated independently by two authors.ResultsWe included 103 observational and 40 interventional studies investigating ~100 health outcomes. Meta-analysis results showed increased greenspace exposure was associated with decreased salivary cortisol -0.05 (95% CI -0.07, -0.04), heart rate -2.57 (95% CI -4.30, -0.83), diastolic blood pressure -1.97 (95% CI -3.45, -0.19), HDL cholesterol -0.03 (95% CI -0.05, <-0.01), low frequency heart rate variability (HRV) -0.06 (95% CI -0.08, -0.03) and increased high frequency HRV 91.87 (95% CI 50.92, 132.82), as well as decreased risk of preterm birth 0.87 (95% CI 0.80, 0.94), type II diabetes 0.72 (95% CI 0.61, 0.85), all-cause mortality 0.69 (95% CI 0.55, 0.87), small size for gestational age 0.81 (95% CI 0.76, 0.86), cardiovascular mortality 0.84 (95% CI 0.76, 0.93), and an increased incidence of good self-reported health 1.12 (95% CI 1.05, 1.19). Incidence of stroke, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, asthma, and coronary heart disease were reduced. For several non-pooled health outcomes, between 66.7% and 100% of studies showed health-denoting associations with increased greenspace exposure including neurological and cancer-related outcomes, and respiratory mortality.ConclusionsGreenspace exposure is associated with numerous health benefits in intervention and observational studies. These results are indicative of a beneficial influence of greenspace on a wide range of health outcomes. However several meta-analyses results are limited by poor study quality and high levels of heterogeneity. Green prescriptions involving greenspace use may have substantial benefits. Our findings should encourage practitioners and policymakers to give due regard to how they can create, maintain, and improve existing accessible greenspaces in deprived areas. Furthermore the development of strategies and interventions for the utilisation of such greenspaces by those who stand to benefit the most.

Project description:To determine benefits and harms of arthroscopic knee surgery involving partial meniscectomy, debridement, or both for middle aged or older patients with knee pain and degenerative knee disease.Systematic review and meta-analysis.Pain and physical function.Systematic searches for benefits and harms were carried out in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to August 2014. Only studies published in 2000 or later were included for harms.Randomised controlled trials assessing benefit of arthroscopic surgery involving partial meniscectomy, debridement, or both for patients with or without radiographic signs of osteoarthritis were included. For harms, cohort studies, register based studies, and case series were also allowed.The search identified nine trials assessing the benefits of knee arthroscopic surgery in middle aged and older patients with knee pain and degenerative knee disease. The main analysis, combining the primary endpoints of the individual trials from three to 24 months postoperatively, showed a small difference in favour of interventions including arthroscopic surgery compared with control treatments for pain (effect size 0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.03 to 0.26). This difference corresponds to a benefit of 2.4 (95% confidence interval 0.4 to 4.3) mm on a 0-100?mm visual analogue scale. When analysed over time of follow-up, interventions including arthroscopy showed a small benefit of 3-5?mm for pain at three and six months but not later up to 24 months. No significant benefit on physical function was found (effect size 0.09, -0.05 to 0.24). Nine studies reporting on harms were identified. Harms included symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (4.13 (95% confidence interval 1.78 to 9.60) events per 1000 procedures), pulmonary embolism, infection, and death.The small inconsequential benefit seen from interventions that include arthroscopy for the degenerative knee is limited in time and absent at one to two years after surgery. Knee arthroscopy is associated with harms. Taken together, these findings do not support the practise of arthroscopic surgery for middle aged or older patients with knee pain with or without signs of osteoarthritis.PROSPERO CRD42014009145.

Project description:Receiving touch is of critical importance, as many studies have shown that touch promotes mental and physical well-being. We conducted a pre-registered (PROSPERO: CRD42022304281) systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis encompassing 137 studies in the meta-analysis and 75 additional studies in the systematic review (n = 12,966 individuals, search via Google Scholar, PubMed and Web of Science until 1 October 2022) to identify critical factors moderating touch intervention efficacy. Included studies always featured a touch versus no touch control intervention with diverse health outcomes as dependent variables. Risk of bias was assessed via small study, randomization, sequencing, performance and attrition bias. Touch interventions were especially effective in regulating cortisol levels (Hedges' g = 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 1.31) and increasing weight (0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94) in newborns as well as in reducing pain (0.69, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.89), feelings of depression (0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.78) and state (0.64, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84) or trait anxiety (0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77) for adults. Comparing touch interventions involving objects or robots resulted in similar physical (0.56, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.88 versus 0.51, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.64) but lower mental health benefits (0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.49 versus 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.73). Adult clinical cohorts profited more strongly in mental health domains compared with healthy individuals (0.63, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80 versus 0.37, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.55). We found no difference in health benefits in adults when comparing touch applied by a familiar person or a health care professional (0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.73 versus 0.50, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.61), but parental touch was more beneficial in newborns (0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.88 versus 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.61). Small but significant small study bias and the impossibility to blind experimental conditions need to be considered. Leveraging factors that influence touch intervention efficacy will help maximize the benefits of future interventions and focus research in this field.

Project description:IntroductionNature exposure is a widely accepted option for promoting public health owing to the recent surge of scientific evidence. However, the actual settings to facilitate this initiative is yet to be extensively reviewed. In this systematic review, we have aimed to provide an up-to-date summary of interventional studies investigating the psycho-physiological effects of forests and urban forests, including details on their physical settings, and investigate an effect-modifying role of altitude and summarize data on the magnitude and shape of the association.MethodsA keyword search using five electronic academic databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus) was conducted to identify relevant articles published in English from the inception year to the end of February 2022. The methodological quality was evaluated using the ROBINS-I or ROB2 tool, depending on the study design. Meta-regression and random effects model were jointly used to examine the relationship between altitude and health outcomes.ResultsWe included 27 eligible studies and 31 cases extracted from 19 studies were used for the meta-analysis. In the meta-regression, we observed a non-linear association between altitude and psycho-physiological effects. Altitude had a positive quadratic association with anxiety (p < 0.000, adjusted R 2 = 96.79%), depression (p < 0.000, adjusted R 2 = 98.78%), and fatigue (p < 0.000, adjusted R 2 = 64.74%) alleviating effects. Conversely, altitude demonstrated a negative non-linear association with the blood pressure-lowering effect (p = 0.009, adjusted R 2 = 32.83%). Additionally, the thermal index (THI) and illuminance (lx) levels were significantly associated with effect sizes of psychological restoration.DiscussionThis review provides moderate-certainty evidence for an effect-modifying role of altitude. The meta-regression results suggested the optimal and minimal altitude ranges for psychological restoration and physiological relaxation, respectively. Despite some limitations, the study findings provide a significant basis for utilizing altitude, which is easily accessible and simple, to promote the health benefits of nature-based initiatives.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022310894, identifier: CRD42022310894.

Dataset Information

Is there evidence that walking groups have health benefits? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Eligibility criteria

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Is there evidence that walking groups have health benefits? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets