Dataset Information

Physical activity referral scheme components: a study protocol for systematic review and meta-regression.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

In its attempt to establish effective physical activity promotion methods, research on physical activity referral schemes (PARS) is attracting significant attention. Sometimes known as physical activity on prescription schemes, PARS involve a well-defined procedure whereby a primary healthcare professional introduces a participant to the topic of physical activity and employs prescription or referral forms to connect the participant to physical activity opportunities, such as local fitness offers. The planned systematic review will focus on these referral routes and scheme components and how they are integrated into various PARS models worldwide. We seek to identify the evidence-based core components that play the most important roles in the effectiveness of PARS.

Methods and analysis

The development and reporting of the protocol follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. We plan to conduct a systematic main literature search on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, HTA, SpringerLink and other databases. We will include studies that report outcomes on physical activity, PARS uptake and adherence rates or descriptive information about PARS models. We intend for all review stages, citation screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment to be conducted by at least two independent reviewers. As a broad spectrum of study designs, including randomised and non-randomised studies of interventions and mixed methods, will be eligible, we will use three separate tools to assess the risk of bias in individual studies. The data will be primarily synthesised narratively, following Intervention Component Analysis. If the data allow, we will perform a random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression to investigate the impact of specific PARS components on effect sizes.

Ethics and dissemination

This systematic review does not require formal ethics approval. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and international conferences to reach the scientific community.

Prospero registration number

CRD42021233229.

SUBMITTER: Mino E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8215250 | 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:Progressive, incurable cancer is associated with increased fatigue, increased muscle weakness, and reduced physical functioning, all of which negatively impact quality of life. Physical activity has demonstrated benefits on cancer-related fatigue and physical functioning in early-stage cancer patients; however, its impact on these outcomes in end-stage cancer has not been established. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the potential benefits, harms, and effects of physical activity interventions on quality of life outcomes in advanced cancer patients.A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature on physical activity in advanced cancer patients will be undertaken. Empirical quantitative studies will be considered for inclusion if they present interventional or observational data on physical activity in advanced cancer patients. Searches will be conducted in the following electronic databases: CINAHL; CIRRIE Database of International Rehabilitation Research; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); EMBASE; MEDLINE; PEDro: the Physiotherapy Evidence Database; PQDT; PsycInfo; PubMed; REHABDATA; Scopus; SPORTDiscus; and Web of Science, to identify relevant studies of interest. Additional strategies to identify relevant studies will include citation searches and evaluation of reference lists of included articles. Titles, abstracts, and keywords of identified studies from the search strategies will be screened for inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers will conduct quality appraisal using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies (EPHPP) and the Cochrane risk of bias tool. A descriptive summary of included studies will describe the study designs, participant and activity characteristics, and objective and patient-reported outcomes.This systematic review will summarize the current evidence base on physical activity interventions in advanced cancer patients. The findings from this systematic review will identify gaps to be explored by future research studies and inform future practice guideline development of physical activity interventions in advanced cancer patients.PROSPERO CRD42015026281.

Project description:ObjectivesUK exercise referral schemes (ERSs) have been criticised for focusing too much on exercise prescription and not enough on sustainable physical activity (PA) behaviour change. Previously, a theoretically grounded intervention (coproduced PA referral scheme, Co-PARS) was coproduced to support long-term PA behaviour change in individuals with health conditions. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of Co-PARS compared with a usual care ERS and no treatment for increasing cardiorespiratory fitness.DesignA three-arm quasi-experimental trial.SettingTwo leisure centres providing (1) Co-PARS, (2) usual exercise referral care and one no-treatment control.Participants68 adults with lifestyle-related health conditions (eg, cardiovascular, diabetes, depression) were recruited to co-PARS, usual care or no treatment.Intervention16-weeks of PA behaviour change support delivered at 4, 8, 12 and 18 weeks, in addition to the usual care 12-week leisure centre access.Outcome measuresCardiorespiratory fitness, vascular health, PA and mental well-being were measured at baseline, 12 weeks and 6 months (PA and mental well-being only). Fitness centre engagement (co-PARS and usual care) and behaviour change consultation attendance (co-PARS) were assessed. Following an intention-to-treat approach, repeated-measures linear mixed models were used to explore intervention effects.ResultsSignificant improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness (p=0.002) and vascular health (p=0.002) were found in co-PARS compared with usual care and no-treatment at 12 weeks. No significant changes in PA or well-being at 12 weeks or 6 months were noted. Intervention engagement was higher in co-PARS than usual care, though this was not statistically significant.ConclusionA coproduced PA behaviour change intervention led to promising improvements in cardiorespiratory and vascular health at 12 weeks, despite no effect for PA levels at 12 weeks or 6 months.Trial registration numberNCT03490747.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the impact of exercise referral schemes on physical activity and health outcomes. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, 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.Populationsedentary 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.ResultsEight 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.