Horne, Jo

Kentzer, Nichola

Smith, Lee

Trott, Mike

Vseteckova, Jitka

English

Open Research Online

Open Research OnlineThe Open University’s repository of research publicationsand other research outputsA systematic review on the prevalence of physicalactivity in informal / unpaid carers in the UKOtherHow to cite:Horne, Jo; Kentzer, Nichola; Smith, Lee; Trott, Mike and Vseteckova, Jitka (2020). A systematic review onthe prevalence of physical activity in informal / unpaid carers in the UK. Prospero - International prospective registerof systematic reviews.For guidance on citations see FAQs.c© [not recorded]Version: Version of RecordLink(s) to article on publisher’s website:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=162032Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyrightowners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policiespage.oro.open.ac.ukPROSPEROInternational prospective register of systematic reviewsA systematic review on the prevalence of physical activity in informal / unpaid carers in theUKJoanna Horne, Nichola Kentzer, Lee Smith, Mike Trott, Jitka VseteckovaTo enable PROSPERO to focus on COVID-19 registrations during the 2020 pandemic, this registrationrecord was automatically published exactly as submitted. It has not been checked for eligibility or for senseby the PROSPERO team. CitationJoanna Horne, Nichola Kentzer, Lee Smith, Mike Trott, Jitka Vseteckova. A systematic review onthe prevalence of physical activity in informal / unpaid carers in the UK. PROSPERO 2020CRD42020162032 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020162032 Review questionWhat is the prevalence of physical activity in unpaid / informal carers in the UK? SearchesArticles and reports related to the topic of physical activity of carers will be identified through searches usingelectronic databases. The purpose of the current systematic review is to synthesize all relevant availableknowledge. To provide a comprehensive overview of this research topic, all existing literature will beincluded, e.g. primary research studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, letters, guidelines, websites etc.The search will be limited to literature written in English and based on carers in the UK. No date restrictionswill be applied. The following electronic databases will be searched:1. PubMed 2. SPORTDiscus3. PsycINFO4. CINAHLAdditionally, grey literature will be searched in OpenGrey, Google and Google Scholar. In addition, referencelists of all relevant studies, reviews and reports will be searched.  Types of study to be includedThe search will include both quantitative and qualitative studies. There will be no restrictions on study design. Condition or domain being studiedPhysical activity of carers. Participants/populationEligible participants include:i) Carers for individuals suffering from any condition requiring careii) Carers must not be caring for the individual as part of their professional vocation i.e. they will be unpaidfamily members or friends                               Page: 1 / 5PROSPEROInternational prospective register of systematic reviewsiii) Carers can be from any age group (including ageing carers of 65+, working age carers aged 25-65, andyoung carers <25)iv) Carers must be based in the UK Intervention(s), exposure(s)Levels of physical activity - all physical activity (both outside of their caring role and/or carried out as part oftheir caring role) will be included. Comparator(s)/controlNone Context Main outcome(s)The primary outcomes of interest relate to the levels and types of physical activity being achieved by unpaidcarers within the UK. It is expected that outcomes will be diverse and context-specific, therefore it is notpossible to produce an exhaustive list at the outset. However, examples of primary outcomes may include:• Measure of time (e.g. minutes / hours) spent on physical activity per time period (e.g. day / week) – eitherself-reported or objectively measured• Percentage of carers reporting that they meet UK Government guidelines for physical activity• Percentage of carers reporting that they achieve their own desired level of physical activity• Types of physical activity that carers report undertakingPhysical activity has been shown to provide clear health benefits including reduced risk of cardiovasculardisease, certain cancers, stress and depression, and improved mental / cognitive health, wellbeing and sleep(Reiner et al., 2013; Warburton et al., 2006). Therefore, knowing the physical activity levels of carers allowsresearchers to develop targeted interventions to improve the mental and physical wellbeing of this specificpopulation. Furthermore, physical activity per se is now recognised as a health outcome by major fundingcouncils and government organisations. * Measures of effectNot applicable. Additional outcome(s)Secondary outcomes relate to the level of physical activity desired by carers in the UK. Again, these areexpected to be context-specific, but secondary outcomes may include:• Amount of time (e.g. minutes / hours) that carers would like to spend on physical activity per time period(e.g. day / week)• Types of physical activity that carers would like to partake in* Measures of effectNot applicable. Data extraction (selection and coding)Study selection (both at title/abstract and full text screening) will be performed by two reviewers. Any                               Page: 2 / 5PROSPEROInternational prospective register of systematic reviewsdisagreements will be solved by consensus or by the decision of a third reviewer where necessary. Aftereliminating the duplicates, an initial screening of titles, abstracts, and summaries (if applicable) will beundertaken to exclude records that clearly do not meet the inclusion criteria. Each record will be classified as‘include’ or ‘exclude’ or ‘maybe’ with comments to identify relevant and exclude irrelevant literature. Theresearchers will be inclusive at this stage and, if uncertain about the relevance of a publication or report, itwill be left in. The full text will be obtained for all the records that potentially meet the inclusion criteria (basedon the title and abstract/summary only). In a second step, all the full text papers will be screened against theinclusion criteria, using a standardized tool. Studies that do not meet the inclusion criteria will be listed withthe reasons for exclusion. An adapted PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) flow-chart of study selection will be included in the review.Two reviewers will independently extract data from each included study and insert this into the Excelspreadsheet. Disagreements between the reviewers will be resolved by discussion, or by a third reviewer.Study authors will be contacted to resolve any uncertainties. The extraction sheet will include authors, yearof study/report, aim/purpose, type of paper (e.g. journal article, annual evaluation report, etc), geographicalarea, study population (e.g. age of carers and condition of individuals being cared for), sample size, studydesign, and key findings that relate to the systematic review question. Two reviewers will independentlyextract data using a structured data extraction form. Disagreements between review authors will be resolvedby discussion or a third author. Risk of bias (quality) assessmentTwo reviewers will independently assess the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, which includesthe following domains: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessors,completeness of outcome data, and selective outcome reporting. We also plan to assess the followingadditional sources of bias: baseline imbalance and inappropriate administration of an intervention asrecommended by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Studies will be judged athigh risk of bias if there was a high risk of bias for 1 or more key domains and at unclear risk of bias if theyhad an unclear risk of bias for at least 2 domains. Authors of papers will be contacted if information ismissing. Strategy for data synthesisFindings from included studies will be synthesized narratively. The ‘Guidance on the Conduct of NarrativeSynthesis in Systematic Reviews’ will advise the narrative synthesis. A preliminary synthesis will beconducted to develop an initial description of the findings and to organize them so that patterns acrossrecords can be identified. Thematic analysis will then be used to analyse the findings. The following fivesteps of thematic analysis will be followed adopting a recursive process:a) Familiarization with the extracted datab) Generation of initial codesc) Searching for themesd) Reviewing themese) Defining and naming themesDepending on the findings available, the reviewers will aim to provide a flow chart mapping the physicalactivity of carers. This review will highlight the current and desired levels of physical activity of carers, as wellas the need for more high-quality research in this field. The information presented in this review may beconsidered, in the future, by primary care providers and funding bodies when planning future support for thisgrowing population of carers.Meta-analysis will be conducted if data is found to be sufficiently homogeneous. We will decide if it isappropriate to pool our measures of effect by assessing if the included studies are similar enough (in termsof their population, intervention characteristics, and reported outcomes) to draw meaningful conclusions. If ameta-analysis of the included studies is indicated, we will assess statistical heterogeneity by visual                               Page: 3 / 5PROSPEROInternational prospective register of systematic reviewsinspection of the scatter of effect estimates in the forest plot and by calculating the I² statistic, after using theinverse variance method. In the case of a high degree of heterogeneity (I² greater than 50%), we will explorepossible reasons for variability by conducting subgroup analysis. Where we detect substantial clinical,methodological or statistical heterogeneity across included studies, we will not report pooled results frommeta-analyses.  Analysis of subgroups or subsetsNone planned Contact details for further informationDr Joanna Hornejo.horne@open.ac.uk Organisational affiliation of the reviewThe Open Universitywww.open.ac.uk Review team members and their organisational affiliationsDr Joanna Horne. The Open UniversityDr Nichola Kentzer. The Open UniversityDr Lee Smith. Anglia Ruskin UniversityMr Mike Trott. Anglia Ruskin UniversityDr Jitka Vseteckova. The Open University Type and method of reviewNarrative synthesis, Systematic review Anticipated or actual start date02 March 2020 Anticipated completion date30 June 2020 Funding sources/sponsorsThe School of Education, Childhood, Youth and Sport and The School of Health, Wellbeing and Social Careat the Open University funded the time of academic staff to design and conduct this review. No otherexternal funding was received. Conflicts of interest LanguageEnglish CountryEngland Stage of reviewReview Ongoing Subject index terms statusSubject indexing assigned by CRD Subject index termsCaregivers; Exercise; Home Nursing; Humans; Prevalence; United Kingdom Date of registration in PROSPERO28 April 2020 Date of publication of this version                               Page: 4 / 5PROSPEROInternational prospective register of systematic reviews28 April 2020 Details of any existing review of the same topic by the same authors Stage of review at time of this submissionThe review has not started Stage Started CompletedPreliminary searches No NoPiloting of the study selection process No NoFormal screening of search results against eligibility criteria No NoData extraction No NoRisk of bias (quality) assessment No NoData analysis No NoThe record owner confirms that the information they have supplied for this submission is accurate andcomplete and they understand that deliberate provision of inaccurate information or omission of data may beconstrued as scientific misconduct.The record owner confirms that they will update the status of the review when it is completed and will addpublication details in due course. Versions28 April 2020 PROSPEROThis information has been provided by the named contact for this review. CRD has accepted this information in goodfaith and registered the review in PROSPERO. The registrant confirms that the information supplied for this submissionis accurate and complete. CRD bears no responsibility or liability for the content of this registration record, anyassociated files or external websites.Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)                               Page: 5 / 5

A systematic review on the prevalence of physical activity in informal / unpaid carers in the UK

http://oro.open.ac.uk/71376/1/Prevalence%20-%20published.pdf

A systematic review on the prevalence of physical activity in informal / unpaid carers in the UK

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Open Research Online