Dataset Information

Characteristics of Physical Exercise Programs for Older Adults in Latin America: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To characterize physical exercise programs for older adults in Latin America.

Methods

This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. A search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between the years 2015 and 2020 was performed in the Scopus, MedLine and SciELO databases.

Results

A total of 101 RCTs were included. A large percentage of the studies had an unclear risk of bias in the items: selection, performance, detection and attribution. Furthermore, a heterogeneous level of compliance was observed in the CERT items. A total sample of 5013 older adults (79% women) was included. 97% of the studies included older adults between 60-70 years, presenting an adherence to the interventions of 86%. The studies were mainly carried out in older adults with cardiometabolic diseases. Only 44% of the studies detailed information regarding the place of intervention; of these studies, 61% developed their interventions in university facilities. The interventions were mainly based on therapeutic physical exercise (89% of the articles), with a duration of 2-6 months (95% of the articles) and a frequency of 2-3 times a week (95% of the articles) with sessions of 30-60 min (94% of the articles) led by sports science professionals (51% of the articles). The components of physical fitness that were exercised the most were muscular strength (77% of the articles) and cardiorespiratory fitness (47% of the articles). Furthermore, only 48% of the studies included a warm-up stage and 34% of the studies included a cool-down stage.

Conclusions

This systematic review characterized the physical exercise programs in older adults in Latin America, as well the most frequently used outcome measures and instruments, by summarizing available evidence derived from RCTs. The results will be useful for prescribing future physical exercise programs in older adults.

SUBMITTER: Vasquez-Araneda E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8000929 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionFew studies have assessed the nature and quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC).Methods and findingsThe aims of this systematic review are to evaluate the characteristics (including the risk of bias assessment) of RCT conducted in LAC according to funding source. A review of RCTs published in 2010 in which the author's affiliation was from LAC was performed in PubMed and LILACS. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcomes were risk of bias assessment and funding source. A total of 1,695 references were found in PubMed and LILACS databases, of which 526 were RCTs (N?=?73.513 participants). English was the dominant publication language (93%) and most of the RCTs were published in non-LAC journals (84.2%). Only five of the 19 identified countries accounted for nearly 95% of all RCTs conducted in the region (Brazil 70.9%, Mexico 10.1%, Argentina 5.9%, Colombia 3.8%, and Chile 3.4%). Few RCTs covered priority areas related with Millennium Development Goals like maternal health (6.7%) or high priority infectious diseases (3.8%). Regarding children, 3.6% and 0.4% RCT evaluated nutrition and diarrhea interventions respectively but none pneumonia. As a comparison, aesthetic and sport related interventions account for 4.6% of all trials. A random sample of RCTs (n?=?358) was assessed for funding source: exclusively public (33.8%); private (e.g. pharmaceutical company) (15.3%); other (e.g. mixed, NGO) (15.1%); no funding (35.8%). Overall assessments for risk of bias showed no statistically significant differences between RCTs and type of funding source. Statistically significant differences favoring private and others type of funding was found when assessing trial registration and conflict of interest reporting.ConclusionFindings of this study could be used to provide more direction for future research to facilitate innovation, improve health outcomes or address priority health problems.