-
1.
Physical activity and the risk of heart failure: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies.
Aune, D, Schlesinger, S, Leitzmann, MF, Tonstad, S, Norat, T, Riboli, E, Vatten, LJ
European journal of epidemiology. 2021;(4):367-381
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Although physical activity is an established protective factor for cardiovascular diseases such as ischemic heart disease and stroke, less is known with regard to the association between specific domains of physical activity and heart failure, as well as the association between cardiorespiratory fitness and heart failure. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies to clarify the relations of total physical activity, domains of physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness to risk of heart failure. PubMed and Embase databases were searched up to January 14th, 2020. Summary relative risks (RRs) were calculated using random effects models. Twenty-nine prospective studies (36 publications) were included in the review. The summary RRs for high versus low levels were 0.77 (95% CI 0.70-0.85, I2 = 49%, n = 7) for total physical activity, 0.74 (95% CI 0.68-0.81, I2 = 88.1%, n = 16) for leisure-time activity, 0.66 (95% CI 0.59-0.74, I2 = 0%, n = 2) for vigorous activity, 0.81 (95% CI 0.69-0.94, I2 = 86%, n = 3) for walking and bicycling combined, 0.90 (95% CI 0.86-0.95, I2 = 0%, n = 3) for occupational activity, and 0.31 (95% CI 0.19-0.49, I2 = 96%, n = 6) for cardiorespiratory fitness. In dose-response analyses, the summary RRs were 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.95, I2 = 67%, n = 4) per 20 MET-hours per day of total activity and 0.71 (95% CI 0.65-0.78, I2 = 85%, n = 11) per 20 MET-hours per week of leisure-time activity. Nonlinear associations were observed in both analyses with a flattening of the dose-response curve at 15-20 MET-hours/week for leisure-time activity. These findings suggest that high levels of total physical activity, leisure-time activity, vigorous activity, occupational activity, walking and bicycling combined and cardiorespiratory fitness are associated with reduced risk of developing heart failure.
-
2.
Workplace pedometer interventions for increasing physical activity.
Freak-Poli, R, Cumpston, M, Albarqouni, L, Clemes, SA, Peeters, A
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2020;(7):CD009209
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends undertaking 150 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity per week, but most people do not. Workplaces present opportunities to influence behaviour and encourage physical activity, as well as other aspects of a healthy lifestyle. A pedometer is an inexpensive device that encourages physical activity by providing feedback on daily steps, although pedometers are now being largely replaced by more sophisticated devices such as accelerometers and Smartphone apps. For this reason, this is the final update of this review. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of pedometer interventions in the workplace for increasing physical activity and improving long-term health outcomes. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) UPDATE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from the earliest record to December 2016. We also consulted the reference lists of included studies and contacted study authors to identify additional records. We updated this search in May 2019, but these results have not yet been incorporated. One more study, previously identified as an ongoing study, was placed in 'Studies awaiting classification'. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of workplace interventions with a pedometer component for employed adults, compared to no or minimal interventions, or to alternative physical activity interventions. We excluded athletes and interventions using accelerometers. The primary outcome was physical activity. Studies were excluded if physical activity was not measured. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. When studies presented more than one physical activity measure, we used a pre-specified list of preferred measures to select one measure and up to three time points for analysis. When possible, follow-up measures were taken after completion of the intervention to identify lasting effects once the intervention had ceased. Given the diversity of measures found, we used ratios of means (RoMs) as standardised effect measures for physical activity. MAIN RESULTS We included 14 studies, recruiting a total of 4762 participants. These studies were conducted in various high-income countries and in diverse workplaces (from offices to physical workplaces). Participants included both healthy populations and those at risk of chronic disease (e.g. through inactivity or overweight), with a mean age of 41 years. All studies used multi-component health promotion interventions. Eleven studies used minimal intervention controls, and four used alternative physical activity interventions. Intervention duration ranged from one week to two years, and follow-up after completion of the intervention ranged from three to ten months. Most studies and outcomes were rated at overall unclear or high risk of bias, and only one study was rated at low risk of bias. The most frequent concerns were absence of blinding and high rates of attrition. When pedometer interventions are compared to minimal interventions at follow-up points at least one month after completion of the intervention, pedometers may have no effect on physical activity (6 studies; very low-certainty evidence; no meta-analysis due to very high heterogeneity), but the effect is very uncertain. Pedometers may have effects on sedentary behaviour and on quality of life (mental health component), but these effects were very uncertain (1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Pedometer interventions may slightly reduce anthropometry (body mass index (BMI) -0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.45 to 0.18; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). Pedometer interventions probably had little to no effect on blood pressure (systolic: -0.08 mmHg, 95% CI -3.26 to 3.11; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and may have reduced adverse effects (such as injuries; from 24 to 10 per 100 people in populations experiencing relatively frequent events; odds ratio (OR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.84; low-certainty evidence). No studies compared biochemical measures or disease risk scores at follow-up after completion of the intervention versus a minimal intervention. Comparison of pedometer interventions to alternative physical activity interventions at follow-up points at least one month after completion of the intervention revealed that pedometers may have an effect on physical activity, but the effect is very uncertain (1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Sedentary behaviour, anthropometry (BMI or waist circumference), blood pressure (systolic or diastolic), biochemistry (low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, total cholesterol, or triglycerides), disease risk scores, quality of life (mental or physical health components), and adverse effects at follow-up after completion of the intervention were not compared to an alternative physical activity intervention. Some positive effects were observed immediately at completion of the intervention periods, but these effects were not consistent, and overall certainty of evidence was insufficient to assess the effectiveness of workplace pedometer interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Exercise interventions can have positive effects on employee physical activity and health, although current evidence is insufficient to suggest that a pedometer-based intervention would be more effective than other options. It is important to note that over the past decade, technological advancement in accelerometers as commercial products, often freely available in Smartphones, has in many ways rendered the use of pedometers outdated. Future studies aiming to test the impact of either pedometers or accelerometers would likely find any control arm highly contaminated. Decision-makers considering allocating resources to large-scale programmes of this kind should be cautious about the expected benefits of incorporating a pedometer and should note that these effects may not be sustained over the longer term. Future studies should be designed to identify the effective components of multi-component interventions, although pedometers may not be given the highest priority (especially considering the increased availability of accelerometers). Approaches to increase the sustainability of intervention effects and behaviours over a longer term should be considered, as should more consistent measures of physical activity and health outcomes.
-
3.
Workplace interventions for increasing standing or walking for decreasing musculoskeletal symptoms in sedentary workers.
Parry, SP, Coenen, P, Shrestha, N, O'Sullivan, PB, Maher, CG, Straker, LM
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2019;(11)
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND The prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers is high. Interventions that promote occupational standing or walking have been found to reduce occupational sedentary time, but it is unclear whether these interventions ameliorate musculoskeletal symptoms in sedentary workers. OBJECTIVES To investigate the effectiveness of workplace interventions to increase standing or walking for decreasing musculoskeletal symptoms in sedentary workers. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, OSH UPDATE, PEDro, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to January 2019. We also screened reference lists of primary studies and contacted experts to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs), quasi RCTs, and controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies of interventions to reduce or break up workplace sitting by encouraging standing or walking in the workplace among workers with musculoskeletal symptoms. The primary outcome was self-reported intensity or presence of musculoskeletal symptoms by body region and the impact of musculoskeletal symptoms such as pain-related disability. We considered work performance and productivity, sickness absenteeism, and adverse events such as venous disorders or perinatal complications as secondary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles for study eligibility. These review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors to request additional data when required. We used GRADE considerations to assess the quality of evidence provided by studies that contributed to the meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS We found ten studies including three RCTs, five cluster RCTs, and two CBA studies with a total of 955 participants, all from high-income countries. Interventions targeted changes to the physical work environment such as provision of sit-stand or treadmill workstations (four studies), an activity tracker (two studies) for use in individual approaches, and multi-component interventions (five studies). We did not find any studies that specifically targeted only the organisational level components. Two studies assessed pain-related disability. Physical work environment There was no significant difference in the intensity of low back symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.80 to 0.10; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) nor in the intensity of upper back symptoms (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -.096 to 0.00; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) in the short term (less than six months) for interventions using sit-stand workstations compared to no intervention. No studies examined discomfort outcomes at medium (six to less than 12 months) or long term (12 months and more). No significant reduction in pain-related disability was noted when a sit-stand workstation was used compared to when no intervention was provided in the medium term (mean difference (MD) -0.4, 95% CI -2.70 to 1.90; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence). Individual approach There was no significant difference in the intensity or presence of low back symptoms (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.77; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), upper back symptoms (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.84; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.78; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), shoulder symptoms (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.90; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), or elbow/wrist and hand symptoms (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.90; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions involving an activity tracker compared to an alternative intervention or no intervention in the short term. No studies provided outcomes at medium term, and only one study examined outcomes at long term. Organisational level No studies evaluated the effects of interventions solely targeted at the organisational level. Multi-component approach There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants reporting low back symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.27; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence), shoulder symptoms (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.80; 2 RCTs; very low-quality evidence), and upper back symptoms (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions using a multi-component approach compared to no intervention in the short term. Only one RCT examined outcomes at medium term and found no significant difference in low back symptoms (MD -0.40, 95% CI -1.95 to 1.15; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence), upper back symptoms (MD -0.70, 95% CI -2.12 to 0.72; low-quality evidence), and leg symptoms (MD -0.80, 95% CI -2.49 to 0.89; low-quality evidence). There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants reporting low back symptoms (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.40; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; two RCTs; low-quality evidence), and upper back symptoms (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.08 to 3.29; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions using a multi-component approach compared to no intervention in the long term. There was a statistically significant reduction in pain-related disability following a multi-component intervention compared to no intervention in the medium term (MD -8.80, 95% CI -17.46 to -0.14; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Currently available limited evidence does not show that interventions to increase standing or walking in the workplace reduced musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers at short-, medium-, or long-term follow up. The quality of evidence is low or very low, largely due to study design and small sample sizes. Although the results of this review are not statistically significant, some interventions targeting the physical work environment are suggestive of an intervention effect. Therefore, in the future, larger cluster-RCTs recruiting participants with baseline musculoskeletal symptoms and long-term outcomes are needed to determine whether interventions to increase standing or walking can reduce musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers and can be sustained over time.
-
4.
Clinical Inquiry: Do pedometers increase activity and improve health outcomes?
Schock, D, Neher, JO, Safranek, S
The Journal of family practice. 2017;(1):48-53
Abstract
In overweight and obese patients, exercise interventions using a pedometer increase steps by about a mile per day over the same interventions without access to pedometer information and are associated with a modest 4 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure (BP) over baseline. In overweight patients with diabetes, pedometer use with nutritional counseling is associated with 0.86 kg greater weight loss than nutritional counseling alone.
-
5.
Is there evidence that walking groups have health benefits? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Hanson, S, Jones, A
British journal of sports medicine. 2015;(11):710-5
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess the health benefits of outdoor walking groups. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis of walking group interventions examining differences in commonly used physiological, psychological and well-being outcomes between baseline and intervention end. DATA SOURCES Seven electronic databases, clinical trial registers, grey literature and reference lists in English language up to November 2013. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Adults, group walking outdoors with outcomes directly attributable to the walking intervention. RESULTS Forty-two studies were identified involving 1843 participants. There is evidence that walking groups have wide-ranging health benefits. Meta-analysis showed statistically significant reductions in mean difference for systolic blood pressure -3.72 mm Hg (-5.28 to -2.17) and diastolic blood pressure -3.14 mm Hg (-4.15 to -2.13); resting heart rate -2.88 bpm (-4.13 to -1.64); body fat -1.31% (-2.10 to -0.52), body mass index -0.71 kg/m(2) (-1.19 to -0.23), total cholesterol -0.11 mmol/L (-0.22 to -0.01) and statistically significant mean increases in VO(2max) of 2.66 mL/kg/min (1.67-3.65), the SF-36 (physical functioning) score 6.02 (0.51 to 11.53) and a 6 min walk time of 79.6 m (53.37-105.84). A standardised mean difference showed a reduction in depression scores with an effect size of -0.67 (-0.97 to -0.38). The evidence was less clear for other outcomes such as waist circumference fasting glucose, SF-36 (mental health) and serum lipids such as high-density lipids. There were no notable adverse side effects reported in any of the studies. CONCLUSIONS Walking groups are effective and safe with good adherence and wide-ranging health benefits. They could be a promising intervention as an adjunct to other healthcare or as a proactive health-promoting activity.
-
6.
Timed 25-foot walk: direct evidence that improving 20% or greater is clinically meaningful in MS.
Hobart, J, Blight, AR, Goodman, A, Lynn, F, Putzki, N
Neurology. 2013;(16):1509-17
Abstract
OBJECTIVE In this study, we used data from clinical trials of dalfampridine (fampridine outside the United States) to re-examine the clinical meaningfulness of Timed 25-Foot Walk (T25FW) changes. METHODS Pooled data were analyzed from 2 phase III randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials of dalfampridine in multiple sclerosis (MS) (n = 533). Walking speed (T25FW) and patient-reported walking ability (MS Walking Scale-12 [MSWS-12]) were measured, concurrently, multiple times before and during treatment. We examined T25FW speed variability within and between visits, correlations of T25FW speed with MSWS-12 score, and changes in MSWS-12 (mean scores, effect sizes) associated with percent T25FW changes. RESULTS T25FW speed variability was small (within- and between-visit averages = 7.2%-8.7% and 14.4%-16.3%). Correlations between T25FW and MSWS-12 values were low (-0.20 to -0.30), but relatively stronger between their change values (-0.33 to -0.41). Speed improvements of >20%, and possibly 15%, were associated with clinically meaningful changes in self-reported walking ability using MSWS-12 change score and effect size criteria. CONCLUSIONS This study builds on existing research and provides direct evidence that improvements in T25FW speed of ≥ 20% are meaningful to people with MS. The dalfampridine data enabled examinations previously not possible, including spontaneous and induced speed changes, speed change anchored to change in self-reported walking ability, and a profile of speed changes. Results support the T25FW as a clinically meaningful outcome measure for MS clinical trials.
-
7.
Quantifying the dose-response of walking in reducing coronary heart disease risk: meta-analysis.
Zheng, H, Orsini, N, Amin, J, Wolk, A, Nguyen, VT, Ehrlich, F
European journal of epidemiology. 2009;(4):181-92
Abstract
The evidence for the efficacy of walking in reducing the risk of and preventing coronary heart disease (CHD) is not completely understood. This meta-analysis aimed to quantify the dose-response relationship between walking and CHD risk reduction for both men and women in the general population. Studies on walking and CHD primary prevention between 1954 and 2007 were identified through Medline, SportDiscus and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Random-effect meta-regression models were used to pool the relative risks from individual studies. A total of 11 prospective cohort studies and one randomized control trial study met the inclusion criteria, with 295,177 participants free of CHD at baseline and 7,094 cases at follow-up. The meta-analysis indicated that an increment of approximately 30 min of normal walking a day for 5 days a week was associated with 19% CHD risk reduction (95% CI = 14-23%; P-heterogeneity = 0.56; I (2) = 0%). We found no evidence of heterogeneity between subgroups of studies defined by gender (P = 0.67); age of the study population (P = 0.52); or follow-up duration (P = 0.77). The meta-analysis showed that the risk for developing CHD decreases as walking dose increases. Walking should be prescribed as an evidence-based effective exercise modality for CHD prevention in the general population.
-
8.
Walking and primary prevention: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.
Hamer, M, Chida, Y
British journal of sports medicine. 2008;(4):238-43
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To quantify the association between walking and the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality in healthy men and women. DATA SOURCES Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science databases were searched to May 2007. STUDY SELECTION Prospective epidemiological studies of walking and CVD and all-cause mortality. RESULTS 18 prospective studies were included in the overall analysis, which incorporated 459 833 participants free from CVD at baseline with 19 249 cases at follow-up. From the meta-analysis the pooled hazard ratio of CVD in the highest walking category compared with the lowest was 0.69, (95% CI 0.61 to 0.77, p<0.001), and 0.68 (0.59 to 0.78, p<0.001) for all-cause mortality. These effects were robust among men and women, although there was evidence of publication biases for the associations with CVD risk. Walking pace was a stronger independent predictor of overall risk compared with walking volume (48% versus 26% risk reductions, respectively). There was also evidence of a dose-response relationship across the highest, intermediate, and lowest walking categories in relation to the outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS The results suggest walking is inversely associated with clinical disease endpoints and largely support the current guidelines for physical activity. The mechanisms that mediate this relationship remain largely unknown and should be the focus of future research.