Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Sedentary Time and Behaviour in Children and Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Runacres A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8583678 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThere is increasing concern about the time people spend in sedentary behaviour, including screen time, leisure and occupational sitting. The number of both primary research studies (published trials) and reviews has been growing rapidly in this research area. A summary of the highest level of evidence that provides a broader quantitative synthesis of diverse types of interventions is needed. This research is to articulate the evidence of efficacy of sedentary behaviour interventions to inform interventions to reduce sitting time. The umbrella review, therefore, synthesised systematic reviews that conducted meta-analyses of interventions aiming at reducing sedentary behaviour outcomes across all age group and settings.MethodA systematic search was conducted on six databases (MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Health via EBSCOhost platform, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Systematic Reviews). Included articles were systematic reviews with meta-analysis of interventions aiming at reducing sedentary behaviour (screen time, sitting time or sedentary time) in the general population across all age group.ResultsSeventeen reviews met the inclusion criteria (7 in children and adolescent, 10 in adults). All reviews of sedentary behaviour interventions in children and adolescents investigated intervention effectiveness in reducing screen time. Six out of 11 meta-analyses (reported in 7 reviews) showed small but significant changes in viewing time. All reviews of sedentary behaviour interventions in office workplaces indicated substantial reduction in occupational sitting time (range: 39.6 to 100 min per 8-h workday). Sub-group analyses reported a trend favouring environmental change components such as sit-stand desks, active permissive workstations etc. Meta-analyses indicated that sedentary behaviour interventions were superior to physical activity alone interventions or combined physical activity and sedentary behaviour interventions in reducing sitting time.ConclusionThe current systematic reviews and meta-analyses supported sedentary behaviour interventions for reducing occupational sitting time in particular, with small changes seen in screen time in children and adolescents. Future research should explore approaches to maintaining behaviour change beyond the intervention period and investigate the potential of sedentary behaviour reduction interventions in older age groups in non-occupational settings.
| S-EPMC7504841 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sedentary behaviour (SB) is increasing in Western societies and some studies suggest a deleterious effect of SB on bone. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the association between SB and bone health in children, adolescents and young adults. Electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Science Citation Index) were searched for relevant articles up to January 9, 2017. Studies were included when results on bone health (e.g. strength, mass and structure) and either subjectively (questionnaires) or objectively (accelerometry) measured SB were reported in healthy participants ≤24 years. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility, rated methodological quality and extracted data. Seventeen observational studies were included. Several studies that used DXA or quantitative ultrasound suggested that objectively measured SB was negatively associated with lower extremity bone outcomes, such as femoral neck bone mineral density. The magnitude of this negative association was small and independent of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. In contrast to the lower extremities, there was insufficient evidence for an association of lumbar spine bone outcomes with objectively measured SB. In high-quality studies that used DXA, no association was observed between objectively measured SB and total body bone outcomes. In studies using questionnaires, none of these relationships were observed. Well-designed longitudinal studies, objectively measuring SB, are needed to further unravel the effect of SB, physical activity and their interaction on bone health.
| S-EPMC5550522 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundScreen time has increased as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and several correlates have been associated with these increases. These changes, however, have not been aggregated. It was the aim of this review to (a) aggregate changes in screen time in adults and children, and (b) report on variables in relation to screen time during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA systematic review of major databases was undertaken for studies published from inception to 06/12/2021, using a pre-published protocol (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021261422). Studies reporting (a) screen time pre-versus-during the pandemic, (b) screen time percentage change, or (c) correlates of screen time during the pandemic were included. A random effects meta-analysis was undertaken with subgroup analysis by age group and type of screen time.FindingsAfter review, 89 studies (n = 204,734; median age=20·6; median female=53·3%) were included. The majority of studies were cross-sectional. With regards to total screen time, primary aged children (6-10 years) reported largest increases (1·4 hrs/day; 95%CI 1·1-1·7), followed by adults (>18 years; 1·0 hrs/day; 95%CI 0·7-1·2), adolescents (11-17 years; 0·9 hrs/day; 95%CI 0·3-1·5), and young children (0-5 years; 0·6 hrs/day 95%CI 0·3-0·9 hrs/day). For leisure screen time (non-work/non-academic), primary aged children reported largest increases (1·0 hrs/day 95%CI 0·8-1·3), followed by adults (0·7hr/day 95%CI 0·3-1·2), young children (0·6 hrs/day; 95%CI 0·4-0·8), with adolescents reporting the lowest increase (0·5 hrs/day 95%CI 0·3-0·7). Several correlates were associated with reported increases in screen time, including adverse dietary behaviours, sleep, mental health, parental health, and eye health.InterpretationPooled evidence suggest that primary aged children reported the highest increase in both total and leisure screen time during COVID-19. It is recommended that screen time should be reduced in favour of non-sedentary activities. This study has the potential to inform public health policy and future guidance regarding screen time, and to inform future research in this area.FundingNo funding was received for this study.
| S-EPMC9122783 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature and compare the effectiveness of controlled interventions with a focus on physical activity (PA) and/or sedentary behaviours (SBs) for reducing sedentary time in adults. Six electronic databases were searched to identify all studies that examined the effects of interventions that targeted PA and/or SBs and that reported on changes in SBs (sedentary, sitting or television time). A qualitative synthesis was performed for all studies, and meta-analyses conducted among studies with mean differences (min/d) of sedentary time.ProsperoCRD42014006535. Sixty-five controlled studies met inclusion criteria; 33 were used in the meta-analyses. Interventions with a focus on PA or that included a PA and SB component produced less consistent findings and generally resulted in modest reductions in sedentary time (PA: standardized mean differences [SMD] = -0.22 [95% confidence interval {CI}: -0.35, -0.10], PA+SB: SMD= -0.37 [95% CI: -0.69, -0.05]). Moderate quality evidence from the randomized controlled trial meta-analysis coupled with the qualitative synthesis provides consistent evidence that large and clinically meaningful reductions in sedentary time can be expected from interventions with a focus on reducing SBs (SMD= -1.28 [95% CI: -1.68, -0.87] ). There is evidence to support the need for interventions to include a component focused on reducing SBs in order to generate clinically meaningful reductions in sedentary time.
| S-EPMC4233995 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSedentary behaviour (SB) is a potential risk factor for suboptimal bone deposition in youth.ResultsTotal SB was negatively associated with lower extremity bone outcomes, while no association was observed with total body bone outcomes. Insufficient evidence was found for an association between total SB and lumbar spine bone outcomes.ConclusionThis review highlights the heterogeneity of the available evidence and emphasizes the need for well-designed studies.
| S-EPMC5624979 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSedentary behaviour is considered to contribute to sarcopenia when combined with physical inactivity. Whether sedentary behaviour is independently associated with sarcopenia remains controversial. The aim of this study is to explore the association between sedentary behaviour and sarcopenia in older adults in community and long-term care facility settings.MethodsEight electronic databases including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Wanfang were searched from inception until August 2023. The review included cross-sectional and longitudinal studies concerning the association between sedentary behaviour and sarcopenia among participants over 60 years old. Evidence was pooled by both random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. Subgroup analyses explored variation according to adjustment of physical activity, settings, and measurements of sedentary behaviour and sarcopenia. Quality assessment for individual studies was performed with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist.ResultsSeventeen articles (16 cross-sectional studies and 1 longitudinal study) of 25,788 participants from community or long-term care facility settings were included. The overall quality of the included studies was rated high. Meta-analysis of 14 cross-sectional studies showed that sedentary behaviour was independently positively associated with sarcopenia: pooled odd ratio 1.36 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.58). The independent positive association remained in subgroup analyses by adjustment of physical activity, settings, and measurements of sedentary behaviour and sarcopenia. The narrative analysis corroborated the findings of the meta-analysis and provided additional evidence suggesting that interruptions in sedentary periods were linked to a decreased likelihood of developing sarcopenia.ConclusionsThe findings support the hypothesis that sedentary behaviour is independently positively associated with sarcopenia in older adults, providing vital indications for the development of strategies to prevent sarcopenia.Systematic review registrationThe systematic review protocol has been registered with the PROSPERO database (CRD42022311399).
| S-EPMC10734096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) are at high risk for high levels of sedentary behaviour. To inform the development of programmes to reduce sedentary behaviour, insight into the correlates is needed. Therefore, the aim of this study is to review the evidence on correlates of sedentary behaviour in adults with ID. We performed a systematic literature search in Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar up to 19 January 2018, resulting in nine included studies that were published from 2011 to 2018. Correlates were categorized according to the ecological model. Studies predominantly focused on individual level correlates. Of those correlates studied in more than one study, having epilepsy was associated with less sedentary behaviour and inconsistent results were found for sex, genetic syndromes, weight status, physical health, mobility, level of ID, and mental health. Of the few interpersonal and environmental factors studied, only living arrangements were studied in more than one study, with inconsistent results. To date, we have limited and inconclusive evidence about correlates of sedentary behaviour in adults with ID. Only when future studies unravel correlates and determinants, across all domains of the ecological model, will the potential opportunities to improve health by reducing sedentary behaviour come within reach.
| S-EPMC6210806 | biostudies-other
Project description:This paper aims to analyse whether time spent in sedentary behaviour was a discriminant criterion for frailty in older adults. This was a cross-sectional study conducted in a sample of 457 elderly individuals aged ≥60 years. Frailty was defined as the presence of three or more of the following criteria: Unintentional weight loss, low walking speed at a 4.57 m course, reduced manual grip strength, exhaustion and insufficient physical activity level. Participants were classified into two groups: Non-frail or frail. Exposure to sedentary behaviour was assessed by the time spent sitting during a typical week, according to the adapted version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Descriptive (mean, frequency) and inferential statistics (Poisson regression, Pearson’s Chi-square, Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve) were used to analyse the data, comparing them to the time-related areas exposed to sedentary behaviour by gender and the presence of fragility. The prevalence of frailty was 22.1% (n = 101). The most accurate cut-off points of sitting time for predicting frailty were >495 min/day (men) or >536 min/day (women). Time spent in sedentary behaviour can be used to indicate fragility in the elderly of both sexes.
| S-EPMC6068470 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Sedentary behaviour (SB) is a risk factor for chronic disease and premature mortality. While many individual studies have examined the reliability and validity of various self-report measures for assessing SB, it is not clear, in general, how self-reported SB (e.g., questionnaires, logs, ecological momentary assessments (EMAs)) compares to device measures (e.g., accelerometers, inclinometers). OBJECTIVE:The primary objective of this systematic review was to compare self-report versus device measures of SB in adults. METHODS:Six bibliographic databases were searched to identify all studies which included a comparable self-report and device measure of SB in adults. Risk of bias within and across studies was assessed. Results were synthesized using meta-analyses. RESULTS:The review included 185 unique studies. A total of 123 studies comprising 173 comparisons and data from 55,199 participants were used to examine general criterion validity. The average mean difference was -105.19 minutes/day (95% CI: -127.21, -83.17); self-report underestimated sedentary time by ~1.74 hours/day compared to device measures. Self-reported time spent sedentary at work was ~40 minutes higher than when assessed by devices. Single item measures performed more poorly than multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries. On average, when compared to inclinometers, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries were not significantly different, but had substantial amount of variability (up to 6 hours/day within individual studies) with approximately half over-reporting and half under-reporting. A total of 54 studies provided an assessment of reliability of a self-report measure, on average the reliability was good (ICC = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS:Evidence from this review suggests that single-item self-report measures generally underestimate sedentary time when compared to device measures. For accuracy, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries with a shorter recall period should be encouraged above single item questions and longer recall periods if sedentary time is a primary outcome of study. Users should also be aware of the high degree of variability between and within tools. Studies should exert caution when comparing associations between different self-report and device measures with health outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42019118755.
| S-EPMC7055033 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSubjective measures of sedentary behaviour (SB) (i.e. questionnaires and diaries/logs) are widely implemented, and can be useful for capturing type and context of SBs. However, little is known about comparative validity and reliability. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to: 1) identify subjective methods to assess overall, domain- and behaviour-specific SB, and 2) examine the validity and reliability of these methods.MethodsThe databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus were searched up to March 2020. Inclusion criteria were: 1) assessment of SB, 2) evaluation of subjective measurement tools, 3) being performed in healthy adults, 4) manuscript written in English, and 5) paper was peer-reviewed. Data of validity and/or reliability measurements was extracted from included studies and a meta-analysis using random effects was performed to assess the pooled correlation coefficients of the validity.ResultsThe systematic search resulted in 2423 hits. After excluding duplicates and screening on title and abstract, 82 studies were included with 75 self-reported measurement tools. There was wide variability in the measurement properties and quality of the studies. The criterion validity varied between poor-to-excellent (correlation coefficient [R] range - 0.01- 0.90) with logs/diaries (R = 0.63 [95%CI 0.48-0.78]) showing higher criterion validity compared to questionnaires (R = 0.35 [95%CI 0.32-0.39]). Furthermore, correlation coefficients of single- and multiple-item questionnaires were comparable (1-item R = 0.34; 2-to-9-items R = 0.35; ≥10-items R = 0.37). The reliability of SB measures was moderate-to-good, with the quality of these studies being mostly fair-to-good.ConclusionLogs and diaries are recommended to validly and reliably assess self-reported SB. However, due to time and resources constraints, 1-item questionnaires may be preferred to subjectively assess SB in large-scale observations when showing similar validity and reliability compared to longer questionnaires.Registration numberCRD42018105994.
| S-EPMC7294635 | biostudies-literature