Are physical activity referral scheme components associated with increased physical activity, scheme uptake, and adherence rate? A meta-analysis and meta-regression.

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Eriselda Mino, Klaus Pfeifer, Coral L Hanson, Michael Schuler, Anna Brandmeier, Sarah Klamroth, Inga Naber, Anja Weissenfels, Sheona McHale, Karim Abu-Omar, Peter Gelius, Stephen Whiting, Kremlin Wickramasinghe, Gauden Galea, Wolfgang Geidl
{"title":"Are physical activity referral scheme components associated with increased physical activity, scheme uptake, and adherence rate? A meta-analysis and meta-regression.","authors":"Eriselda Mino, Klaus Pfeifer, Coral L Hanson, Michael Schuler, Anna Brandmeier, Sarah Klamroth, Inga Naber, Anja Weissenfels, Sheona McHale, Karim Abu-Omar, Peter Gelius, Stephen Whiting, Kremlin Wickramasinghe, Gauden Galea, Wolfgang Geidl","doi":"10.1186/s12966-024-01623-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Physical activity referral schemes (PARS) are composed of various components, such as a written prescription or a person-centered approach. The role of these components in their effectiveness is yet to be understood. Therefore, we aimed to explore the relationships between PARS components and physical activity, scheme uptake, and adherence rate; and to estimate the effect of PARS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, HTA, Wiley Online Library, SAGE Journals, Taylor & Francis, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, and CORE. Eligible studies were published between 1990 and November 2023 in English or German, investigated PARS with participants aged ≥ 16 years, and reported physical activity, scheme uptake, or scheme adherence. Separate random-effects meta-analysis by comparison group were conducted for physical activity. Scheme uptake and adherence rates were pooled using proportional meta-analysis. The components were analyzed via univariate meta-regression. We rated the risk of bias using RoB2 and ROBINS-I, and the certainty of evidence using GRADE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-two studies were included. PARS were more effective in increasing physical activity than usual care (k = 11, n = 5046, Hedges' g = 0.18, 95%CI 0.12 to 0.25; high certainty of evidence). When PARS were compared with physical activity advice or enhanced scheme versions, the pooled Hedges' g values for physical activity were -0.06 (k = 5, n = 1082, 95%CI -0.21 to 0.10; low certainty of evidence), and 0.07 (k = 9, n = 2647, 95%CI -0.03 to 0.18; low certainty of evidence) respectively. Scheme uptake was 87% (95%CI 77% to 94%, k = 14, n = 5000) across experimental studies and 68% (95%CI 51% to 83%, k = 14, n = 25,048) across non-experimental studies. Pooled scheme adherence was 68% (95%CI 55% to 80%, k = 16, n = 3939) and 53% (95%CI 42% to 63%, k = 18, n = 14,605). The meta-regression did not detect any significant relationships between components and physical activity or scheme uptake. A person-centered approach, screening, and brief advice were positively associated with scheme adherence, while physical activity sessions were negatively associated.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PARS are more effective in increasing physical activity than usual care only. We did not identify any components as significant predictors of physical activity and scheme uptake. Four components predicted scheme adherence, indicating that the component-effectiveness relationship warrants further research.</p>","PeriodicalId":50336,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11295389/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-024-01623-5","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Physical activity referral schemes (PARS) are composed of various components, such as a written prescription or a person-centered approach. The role of these components in their effectiveness is yet to be understood. Therefore, we aimed to explore the relationships between PARS components and physical activity, scheme uptake, and adherence rate; and to estimate the effect of PARS.

Methods: We searched Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, HTA, Wiley Online Library, SAGE Journals, Taylor & Francis, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, and CORE. Eligible studies were published between 1990 and November 2023 in English or German, investigated PARS with participants aged ≥ 16 years, and reported physical activity, scheme uptake, or scheme adherence. Separate random-effects meta-analysis by comparison group were conducted for physical activity. Scheme uptake and adherence rates were pooled using proportional meta-analysis. The components were analyzed via univariate meta-regression. We rated the risk of bias using RoB2 and ROBINS-I, and the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

Results: Fifty-two studies were included. PARS were more effective in increasing physical activity than usual care (k = 11, n = 5046, Hedges' g = 0.18, 95%CI 0.12 to 0.25; high certainty of evidence). When PARS were compared with physical activity advice or enhanced scheme versions, the pooled Hedges' g values for physical activity were -0.06 (k = 5, n = 1082, 95%CI -0.21 to 0.10; low certainty of evidence), and 0.07 (k = 9, n = 2647, 95%CI -0.03 to 0.18; low certainty of evidence) respectively. Scheme uptake was 87% (95%CI 77% to 94%, k = 14, n = 5000) across experimental studies and 68% (95%CI 51% to 83%, k = 14, n = 25,048) across non-experimental studies. Pooled scheme adherence was 68% (95%CI 55% to 80%, k = 16, n = 3939) and 53% (95%CI 42% to 63%, k = 18, n = 14,605). The meta-regression did not detect any significant relationships between components and physical activity or scheme uptake. A person-centered approach, screening, and brief advice were positively associated with scheme adherence, while physical activity sessions were negatively associated.

Conclusion: PARS are more effective in increasing physical activity than usual care only. We did not identify any components as significant predictors of physical activity and scheme uptake. Four components predicted scheme adherence, indicating that the component-effectiveness relationship warrants further research.

体育活动转介计划的组成部分与体育活动的增加、计划的吸收和坚持率有关吗?一项荟萃分析和荟萃回归。
背景:体育锻炼转介计划(PARS)由多种部分组成,如书面处方或以人为本的方法。这些组成部分在其有效性中的作用尚待了解。因此,我们旨在探讨 PARS 各组成部分与体育锻炼、计划吸收和坚持率之间的关系,并估计 PARS 的效果:我们检索了 Scopus、PubMed、Web of Science、CINAHL、ScienceDirect、SpringerLink、HTA、Wiley Online Library、SAGE Journals、Taylor & Francis、Google Scholar、OpenGrey 和 CORE。符合条件的研究发表于 1990 年至 2023 年 11 月之间,语言为英语或德语,调查对象为年龄≥ 16 岁的 PARS 参与者,并报告了体育活动、计划吸收或计划坚持情况。对体育活动进行了按对比组别分列的随机效应荟萃分析。采用比例荟萃分析法对计划吸收率和坚持率进行了汇总。通过单变量元回归对各组成部分进行了分析。我们使用 RoB2 和 ROBINS-I 评定了偏倚风险,并使用 GRADE 评定了证据的确定性:结果:共纳入 52 项研究。在增加体育锻炼方面,PARS 比常规护理更有效(k = 11,n = 5046,Hedges' g = 0.18,95%CI 0.12 至 0.25;证据确定性高)。将 PARS 与体育锻炼建议或增强型计划版本进行比较时,体育锻炼的赫奇斯 g 汇总值分别为 -0.06 (k = 5, n = 1082, 95%CI -0.21 to 0.10; 低证据确定性) 和 0.07 (k = 9, n = 2647, 95%CI -0.03 to 0.18; 低证据确定性)。实验研究中,计划采纳率为 87%(95%CI 77% 至 94%,k = 14,n = 5000),非实验研究中,计划采纳率为 68%(95%CI 51% 至 83%,k = 14,n = 25048)。汇总方案的依从性为 68%(95%CI 55% 至 80%,k = 16,n = 3939)和 53%(95%CI 42% 至 63%,k = 18,n = 14605)。元回归未发现各组成部分与体育活动或计划摄入量之间存在任何显著关系。以人为本的方法、筛查和简短建议与计划的坚持率呈正相关,而体育锻炼课程与计划的坚持率呈负相关:结论:在增加体育锻炼方面,PARS 比常规护理更有效。我们没有发现任何因素能显著预测体育锻炼和计划的实施。有四个组成部分可以预测计划的坚持率,这表明组成部分的有效性关系值得进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.80
自引率
3.40%
发文量
138
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity (IJBNPA) is an open access, peer-reviewed journal offering high quality articles, rapid publication and wide diffusion in the public domain. IJBNPA is devoted to furthering the understanding of the behavioral aspects of diet and physical activity and is unique in its inclusion of multiple levels of analysis, including populations, groups and individuals and its inclusion of epidemiology, and behavioral, theoretical and measurement research areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信