24 research outputs found
Longitudinal Associations of Leisure-Time Physical Activity and Cancer Mortality in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1986â2006)
Longitudinal associations between leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) and overall cancer mortality were evaluated within the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III; 1988â2006; n = 15,535). Mortality status was ascertained using the National Death Index. Self-reported LTPA was divided into inactive, regular low-to-moderate and vigorous activity. A frequency-weighted metabolic equivalents (METS/week) variable was also computed. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for overall cancer mortality in the whole sample, by body mass index categories and insulin resistance (IR) status. Nonsignificant protective associations were observed for regular low-to-moderate and vigorous activity, and for the highest quartile of METS/week (HRs range: 0.66â0.95). Individuals without IR engaging in regular vigorous activity had a 48% decreased risk of cancer mortality (HR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.28â0.98) in multivariate analyses. Conversely, nonsignificant positive associations were observed in people with IR. In conclusion, regular vigorous activity may reduce risk of cancer mortality among persons with normal insulin-glucose metabolism in this national sample
Interventions outside the workplace for reducing sedentary behaviour in adults under 60 years of age
Background Adults spend a majority of their time outside the workplace being sedentary. Large amounts of sedentary behaviour increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and both allâcause and cardiovascular disease mortality. Objectives Primary ⢠To assess effects on sedentary time of nonâoccupational interventions for reducing sedentary behaviour in adults under 60 years of age Secondary ⢠To describe other health effects and adverse events or unintended consequences of these interventions ⢠To determine whether specific components of interventions are associated with changes in sedentary behaviour ⢠To identify if there are any differential effects of interventions based on health inequalities (e.g. age, sex, income, employment) Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, and ClinicalTrials.gov on 14 April 2020. We checked references of included studies, conducted forward citation searching, and contacted authors in the field to identify additional studies. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs of interventions outside the workplace for communityâdwelling adults aged 18 to 59 years. We included studies only when the intervention had a specific aim or component to change sedentary behaviour. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened titles/abstracts and fullâtext articles for study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional information or data when required. We examined the following primary outcomes: deviceâmeasured sedentary time, selfâreport sitting time, selfâreport TV viewing time, and breaks in sedentary time. Main results We included 13 trials involving 1770 participants, all undertaken in highâincome countries. Ten were RCTs and three were cluster RCTs. The mean age of study participants ranged from 20 to 41 years. A majority of participants were female. All interventions were delivered at the individual level. Intervention components included personal monitoring devices, information or education, counselling, and prompts to reduce sedentary behaviour. We judged no study to be at low risk of bias across all domains. Seven studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessment due to use of selfâreport outcomes measures. Primary outcomes Interventions outside the workplace probably show little or no difference in deviceâmeasured sedentary time in the short term (mean difference (MD) â8.36 min/d, 95% confidence interval (CI) â27.12 to 10.40; 4 studies; I² = 0%; moderateâcertainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions reduce deviceâmeasured sedentary time in the medium term (MD â51.37 min/d, 95% CI â126.34 to 23.59; 3 studies; I² = 84%; very lowâcertainty evidence) We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace reduce selfâreport sitting time in the short term (MD â64.12 min/d, 95% CI â260.91 to 132.67; I² = 86%; very lowâcertainty evidence). Interventions outside the workplace may show little or no difference in selfâreport TV viewing time in the medium term (MD â12.45 min/d, 95% CI â50.40 to 25.49; 2 studies; I² = 86%; lowâcertainty evidence) or in the long term (MD 0.30 min/d, 95% CI â0.63 to 1.23; 2 studies; I² = 0%; lowâcertainty evidence). It was not possible to pool the five studies that reported breaks in sedentary time given the variation in definitions used. Secondary outcomes Interventions outside the workplace probably have little or no difference on body mass index in the medium term (MD â0.25 kg/m², 95% CI â0.48 to â0.01; 3 studies; I² = 0%; moderateâcertainty evidence). Interventions may have little or no difference in waist circumference in the medium term (MD â2.04 cm, 95% CI â9.06 to 4.98; 2 studies; I² = 65%; lowâcertainty evidence). Interventions probably have little or no difference on glucose in the short term (MD â0.18 mmol/L, 95% CI â0.30 to â0.06; 2 studies; I² = 0%; moderateâcertainty evidence) and medium term (MD â0.08 mmol/L, 95% CI â0.21 to 0.05; 2 studies, I² = 0%; moderateâcertainty evidence) Interventions outside the workplace may have little or no difference in deviceâmeasured MVPA in the short term (MD 1.99 min/d, 95% CI â4.27 to 8.25; 4 studies; I² = 23%; lowâcertainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions improve deviceâmeasured MVPA in the medium term (MD 6.59 min/d, 95% CI â7.35 to 20.53; 3 studies; I² = 70%; very lowâcertainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace improve selfâreported lightâintensity PA in the shortâterm (MD 156.32 min/d, 95% CI 34.34 to 278.31; 2 studies; I² = 79%; very lowâcertainty evidence). Interventions may have little or no difference on step count in the shortâterm (MD 226.90 steps/day, 95% CI â519.78 to 973.59; 3 studies; I² = 0%; lowâcertainty evidence) No data on adverse events or symptoms were reported in the included studies. Authors' conclusions Interventions outside the workplace to reduce sedentary behaviour probably lead to little or no difference in deviceâmeasured sedentary time in the short term, and we are uncertain if they reduce deviceâmeasured sedentary time in the medium term. We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace reduce selfâreported sitting time in the short term. Interventions outside the workplace may result in little or no difference in selfâreport TV viewing time in the medium or long term. The certainty of evidence is moderate to very low, mainly due to concerns about risk of bias, inconsistent findings, and imprecise results. Future studies should be of longer duration; should recruit participants from varying age, socioeconomic, or ethnic groups; and should gather quality of life, costâeffectiveness, and adverse event data. We strongly recommend that standard methods of data preparation and analysis are adopted to allow comparison of the effects of interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour
Recommended from our members
Negative Affect and Barriers to Exercise Among Early Stage Breast Cancer Patients
Objective:
To assess the relative frequency of and barriers to exercise among women
with breast cancer while controlling for cancer-relevant and demographic
factors.
Design:
The present study employed concurrent samples, correlational research
design.
Main Outcome Measures:
Exercise frequency and its association with negative affect and barriers
to exercise, independent of cancer treatment, among women (
N
=176) with Stage I or II breast cancer who were 3, 6, and 12 months postsurgery.
Results:
After accounting for cancer-relevant and control variables, degree of
negative affect and frequency of perceived barriers were significantly inversely
associated with exercise.
Conclusion:
These findings suggest that attention to both emotional factors and
psychosocial barriers to exercise may be warranted to further understand
exercise among women with early stage breast cancer