了解成人学习障碍生活方式改变干预的有效性和潜在机制:一项混合方法的系统综述。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Dikshyanta Rana, Sophie Westrop, Nishant Jaiswal, Evi Germeni, Arlene McGarty, Louisa Ells, Phillippa Lally, Michael McEwan, Craig Melville, Leanne Harris, Olivia Wu
{"title":"了解成人学习障碍生活方式改变干预的有效性和潜在机制:一项混合方法的系统综述。","authors":"Dikshyanta Rana, Sophie Westrop, Nishant Jaiswal, Evi Germeni, Arlene McGarty, Louisa Ells, Phillippa Lally, Michael McEwan, Craig Melville, Leanne Harris, Olivia Wu","doi":"10.3310/BSTG4556","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adults with learning disabilities face increased risks of unhealthy lifestyle behaviours, including alcohol consumption, smoking, low physical activity, sedentary behaviour and poor diet. Lifestyle modification interventions that target health-risk behaviours can prevent or reduce their negative effects. The goal of this project was to investigate the effectiveness and underlying mechanisms of lifestyle modification interventions in adults with learning disabilities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to determine the effectiveness of lifestyle modification interventions and their components in targeting health risk behaviours in adults with learning disabilities. Major electronic databases, clinical trial registries, grey literature, and citations of systematic reviews and included studies were searched in January 2021 (updated in February 2022). We included randomised and non-randomised controlled trials targeting alcohol consumption, smoking, low physical activity only, sedentary behaviour and poor diet in adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with learning disabilities. Studies were also coded based on the extent of use of theories and behaviour change techniques in interventions. Risk of bias in studies was assessed using appropriate tools. A realist synthesis of qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods literature was conducted to complement the systematic review findings by identifying key intervention mechanisms that are likely to improve the health of adults with learning disabilities. Data were synthesised in the form of a programme theory regarding complex causal mechanisms and how these interact with social context to produce outcomes. All findings were integrated into a logic model. A patient and public involvement group provided input and insights throughout the project.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 80 studies with 4805 participants were included in the systematic review. The complexity of lifestyle modification interventions was dismantled by identifying six core components that influenced outcomes. These components could be present in interventions targeting single or multiple health risk behaviors, either as individual elements or in various combinations. Interventions on alcohol and smoking behaviours were found to be effective, but this was based on limited evidence. The effectiveness of interventions targeting low physical activity only or multiple behaviours (low physical activity only, sedentary behaviours and poor diet) was mixed. All interventions had a varying level of statistical significance. The intervention-level network meta-analysis for weight management outcomes showed none of the interventions was associated with a statistically significant change in outcomes when compared to treatment as usual and each other. Similar findings were observed in the component network meta-analysis. A variety of theories and behaviour change techniques were employed in the development and adaptation of interventions. Most studies had a high and moderate risk of bias. A total of 79 studies, reporting the experiences of more than 3604 adults with intellectual disabilities and over 490 caregivers, were included in the realist synthesis. The resulting programme theory highlighted the contexts and mechanisms relating to support involvement, negotiating the balance between autonomy and behaviour change, fostering social connectedness and fun, the accessibility and suitability of intervention strategies and delivery, along with the broader behavioural pathways to lifestyle change. It also brought out the importance of working with people with lived experiences when developing and evaluating interventions. Our logic model, bringing together the findings of both syntheses, provides guidance on the design of future interventions.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This study was the first comprehensive mixed-methods evidence synthesis to explore lifestyle modification interventions targeting multiple unhealthy lifestyle behaviours in adults with learning disabilities. We conclude that future research could benefit from codeveloping interventions and population-specific assessment frameworks with people with lived experiences. There is a need for more high-quality research with appropriate outcomes and a focus on qualitative and mixed-methods research to better understand what works for whom and why.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD 42020223290.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128755) and is published in full in <i>Health Technology Assessment</i>; Vol. 29, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":12898,"journal":{"name":"Health technology assessment","volume":"29 4","pages":"1-168"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11891619/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding the effectiveness and underlying mechanisms of lifestyle modification interventions in adults with learning disabilities: a mixed-methods systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Dikshyanta Rana, Sophie Westrop, Nishant Jaiswal, Evi Germeni, Arlene McGarty, Louisa Ells, Phillippa Lally, Michael McEwan, Craig Melville, Leanne Harris, Olivia Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/BSTG4556\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adults with learning disabilities face increased risks of unhealthy lifestyle behaviours, including alcohol consumption, smoking, low physical activity, sedentary behaviour and poor diet. Lifestyle modification interventions that target health-risk behaviours can prevent or reduce their negative effects. The goal of this project was to investigate the effectiveness and underlying mechanisms of lifestyle modification interventions in adults with learning disabilities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to determine the effectiveness of lifestyle modification interventions and their components in targeting health risk behaviours in adults with learning disabilities. Major electronic databases, clinical trial registries, grey literature, and citations of systematic reviews and included studies were searched in January 2021 (updated in February 2022). We included randomised and non-randomised controlled trials targeting alcohol consumption, smoking, low physical activity only, sedentary behaviour and poor diet in adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with learning disabilities. Studies were also coded based on the extent of use of theories and behaviour change techniques in interventions. Risk of bias in studies was assessed using appropriate tools. A realist synthesis of qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods literature was conducted to complement the systematic review findings by identifying key intervention mechanisms that are likely to improve the health of adults with learning disabilities. Data were synthesised in the form of a programme theory regarding complex causal mechanisms and how these interact with social context to produce outcomes. All findings were integrated into a logic model. A patient and public involvement group provided input and insights throughout the project.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 80 studies with 4805 participants were included in the systematic review. The complexity of lifestyle modification interventions was dismantled by identifying six core components that influenced outcomes. These components could be present in interventions targeting single or multiple health risk behaviors, either as individual elements or in various combinations. Interventions on alcohol and smoking behaviours were found to be effective, but this was based on limited evidence. The effectiveness of interventions targeting low physical activity only or multiple behaviours (low physical activity only, sedentary behaviours and poor diet) was mixed. All interventions had a varying level of statistical significance. The intervention-level network meta-analysis for weight management outcomes showed none of the interventions was associated with a statistically significant change in outcomes when compared to treatment as usual and each other. Similar findings were observed in the component network meta-analysis. A variety of theories and behaviour change techniques were employed in the development and adaptation of interventions. Most studies had a high and moderate risk of bias. A total of 79 studies, reporting the experiences of more than 3604 adults with intellectual disabilities and over 490 caregivers, were included in the realist synthesis. The resulting programme theory highlighted the contexts and mechanisms relating to support involvement, negotiating the balance between autonomy and behaviour change, fostering social connectedness and fun, the accessibility and suitability of intervention strategies and delivery, along with the broader behavioural pathways to lifestyle change. It also brought out the importance of working with people with lived experiences when developing and evaluating interventions. Our logic model, bringing together the findings of both syntheses, provides guidance on the design of future interventions.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This study was the first comprehensive mixed-methods evidence synthesis to explore lifestyle modification interventions targeting multiple unhealthy lifestyle behaviours in adults with learning disabilities. We conclude that future research could benefit from codeveloping interventions and population-specific assessment frameworks with people with lived experiences. There is a need for more high-quality research with appropriate outcomes and a focus on qualitative and mixed-methods research to better understand what works for whom and why.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD 42020223290.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128755) and is published in full in <i>Health Technology Assessment</i>; Vol. 29, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12898,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health technology assessment\",\"volume\":\"29 4\",\"pages\":\"1-168\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11891619/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health technology assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/BSTG4556\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/BSTG4556","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:有学习障碍的成年人面临不健康生活方式行为的风险增加,包括饮酒、吸烟、体力活动少、久坐行为和不良饮食。针对危害健康行为的生活方式改变干预措施可以预防或减少其负面影响。本研究的目的是研究成人学习障碍患者生活方式改变干预的有效性和潜在机制。方法:通过系统回顾和荟萃分析来确定生活方式改变干预措施及其组成部分在针对学习障碍成人健康风险行为方面的有效性。于2021年1月检索了主要电子数据库、临床试验注册库、灰色文献以及系统评价和纳入研究的引用(更新于2022年2月)。我们纳入了随机和非随机对照试验,目标是有学习障碍的成年人(年龄≥18岁)饮酒、吸烟、仅低体力活动、久坐行为和不良饮食。研究也根据干预措施中理论和行为改变技术的使用程度进行编码。使用适当的工具评估研究的偏倚风险。通过确定可能改善成人学习障碍健康的关键干预机制,对定性、定量和混合方法的文献进行了现实主义的综合,以补充系统综述的发现。数据以程序理论的形式合成,涉及复杂的因果机制以及这些机制如何与社会环境相互作用以产生结果。所有的发现都被整合到一个逻辑模型中。病人和公众参与小组在整个项目中提供了意见和见解。结果:共纳入80项研究,4805名受试者。通过确定影响结果的六个核心组成部分,消除了生活方式改变干预措施的复杂性。这些成分可能存在于针对单一或多种健康风险行为的干预措施中,既可以单独存在,也可以以各种组合形式存在。对酒精和吸烟行为的干预措施被发现是有效的,但这是基于有限的证据。仅针对低体力活动或多种行为(低体力活动、久坐行为和不良饮食)的干预措施的有效性参差不齐。所有干预措施均具有不同程度的统计学显著性。体重管理结果的干预水平网络荟萃分析显示,与常规治疗和相互治疗相比,没有一种干预与结果的统计显著变化相关。在成分网络荟萃分析中也观察到类似的结果。在干预措施的发展和适应中采用了各种理论和行为改变技术。大多数研究有高和中等偏倚风险。共有79项研究,报告了3604多名智力残疾成年人和490多名照顾者的经历,被纳入现实主义综合。由此产生的项目理论强调了与支持参与有关的背景和机制,在自主性和行为改变之间达成平衡,促进社会联系和乐趣,干预策略和交付的可及性和适用性,以及改变生活方式的更广泛的行为途径。它还指出,在制定和评估干预措施时,与有实际经历的人一起工作的重要性。我们的逻辑模型结合了两种综合研究的结果,为未来干预措施的设计提供了指导。讨论:本研究是首个综合混合方法的证据综合,旨在探讨针对学习障碍成人多种不健康生活方式行为的生活方式改变干预措施。我们的结论是,未来的研究可以从与有生活经验的人共同开发干预措施和特定人群的评估框架中受益。有必要开展更多具有适当结果的高质量研究,并注重定性和混合方法研究,以便更好地了解什么对谁有效以及为什么有效。试验注册:该试验注册号为PROSPERO CRD 42020223290。资助:该奖项由美国国立卫生与保健研究所(NIHR)卫生技术评估项目(NIHR奖励编号:NIHR128755)资助,全文发表在《卫生技术评估》杂志上;第29卷第4期有关进一步的奖励信息,请参阅美国国立卫生研究院资助和奖励网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Understanding the effectiveness and underlying mechanisms of lifestyle modification interventions in adults with learning disabilities: a mixed-methods systematic review.

Background: Adults with learning disabilities face increased risks of unhealthy lifestyle behaviours, including alcohol consumption, smoking, low physical activity, sedentary behaviour and poor diet. Lifestyle modification interventions that target health-risk behaviours can prevent or reduce their negative effects. The goal of this project was to investigate the effectiveness and underlying mechanisms of lifestyle modification interventions in adults with learning disabilities.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to determine the effectiveness of lifestyle modification interventions and their components in targeting health risk behaviours in adults with learning disabilities. Major electronic databases, clinical trial registries, grey literature, and citations of systematic reviews and included studies were searched in January 2021 (updated in February 2022). We included randomised and non-randomised controlled trials targeting alcohol consumption, smoking, low physical activity only, sedentary behaviour and poor diet in adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with learning disabilities. Studies were also coded based on the extent of use of theories and behaviour change techniques in interventions. Risk of bias in studies was assessed using appropriate tools. A realist synthesis of qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods literature was conducted to complement the systematic review findings by identifying key intervention mechanisms that are likely to improve the health of adults with learning disabilities. Data were synthesised in the form of a programme theory regarding complex causal mechanisms and how these interact with social context to produce outcomes. All findings were integrated into a logic model. A patient and public involvement group provided input and insights throughout the project.

Results: A total of 80 studies with 4805 participants were included in the systematic review. The complexity of lifestyle modification interventions was dismantled by identifying six core components that influenced outcomes. These components could be present in interventions targeting single or multiple health risk behaviors, either as individual elements or in various combinations. Interventions on alcohol and smoking behaviours were found to be effective, but this was based on limited evidence. The effectiveness of interventions targeting low physical activity only or multiple behaviours (low physical activity only, sedentary behaviours and poor diet) was mixed. All interventions had a varying level of statistical significance. The intervention-level network meta-analysis for weight management outcomes showed none of the interventions was associated with a statistically significant change in outcomes when compared to treatment as usual and each other. Similar findings were observed in the component network meta-analysis. A variety of theories and behaviour change techniques were employed in the development and adaptation of interventions. Most studies had a high and moderate risk of bias. A total of 79 studies, reporting the experiences of more than 3604 adults with intellectual disabilities and over 490 caregivers, were included in the realist synthesis. The resulting programme theory highlighted the contexts and mechanisms relating to support involvement, negotiating the balance between autonomy and behaviour change, fostering social connectedness and fun, the accessibility and suitability of intervention strategies and delivery, along with the broader behavioural pathways to lifestyle change. It also brought out the importance of working with people with lived experiences when developing and evaluating interventions. Our logic model, bringing together the findings of both syntheses, provides guidance on the design of future interventions.

Discussion: This study was the first comprehensive mixed-methods evidence synthesis to explore lifestyle modification interventions targeting multiple unhealthy lifestyle behaviours in adults with learning disabilities. We conclude that future research could benefit from codeveloping interventions and population-specific assessment frameworks with people with lived experiences. There is a need for more high-quality research with appropriate outcomes and a focus on qualitative and mixed-methods research to better understand what works for whom and why.

Trial registration: This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD 42020223290.

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128755) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 29, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health technology assessment
Health technology assessment 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) publishes research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.
×
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