Valter Cordeiro Barbosa Filho1, Giseli Minatto2, Jorge Mota3, Kelly Samara Silva4, Wagner de Campos5, Adair da Silva Lopes4. 1. Research Centre in Physical Activity and Health, Department of Physical Education, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil; Research Centre in Physical Activity, Health and Leisure, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. Electronic address: valtercbf@gmail.com. 2. Research Centre for Kineantropometry and Human Performance, Department of Physical Education, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil. 3. Research Centre in Physical Activity, Health and Leisure, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. 4. Research Centre in Physical Activity and Health, Department of Physical Education, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil. 5. Research Centre for Exercise and Sport, Department of Physical Education, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It is unknown how much previous reviews on promoting physical activity (PA) for children and adolescents (aged 6-18years) take into account studies from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC, based on the World Bank definition) and the level of evidence of the effect of PA interventions in this population. This study aims to answer such questions using an umbrella systematic review approach. METHODS: We searched for peer-reviewed systematic reviews and original studies in eight electronic databases, screening of reference lists and expert contacts. Information in systematic reviews on PA interventions for children and adolescents from LMIC was discussed. Original studies on PA interventions (randomized-controlled trials [RCT], cluster-RCT and non-RCT) with children and adolescents from LMIC were eligible. We assessed the methodological quality in all studies, and the evidence level of effect on PA in intervention studies. RESULTS: Fifty systematic reviews (nine meta-analyses) and 25 original studies (20 different interventions) met eligibility criteria. Only 3.1% of mentioned studies in previous reviews were from LMIC. Strong and LMIC-specific evidence was found that school-based, multicomponent, and short-term (up to six months) interventions, focused on adolescents primarily (aged 13-18years), can promote PA in children and adolescents from LMIC. Other intervention characteristics had inconclusive evidence due to the low number of studies, low methodological quality, and/or small sample size. CONCLUSION: A minimal part of PA interventions mentioned in previous reviews are from LMIC. Our LMIC-specific analyses showed priorities of implementation and practical implication that can be used in public policies for PA promotion in LMIC.
OBJECTIVE: It is unknown how much previous reviews on promoting physical activity (PA) for children and adolescents (aged 6-18years) take into account studies from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC, based on the World Bank definition) and the level of evidence of the effect of PA interventions in this population. This study aims to answer such questions using an umbrella systematic review approach. METHODS: We searched for peer-reviewed systematic reviews and original studies in eight electronic databases, screening of reference lists and expert contacts. Information in systematic reviews on PA interventions for children and adolescents from LMIC was discussed. Original studies on PA interventions (randomized-controlled trials [RCT], cluster-RCT and non-RCT) with children and adolescents from LMIC were eligible. We assessed the methodological quality in all studies, and the evidence level of effect on PA in intervention studies. RESULTS: Fifty systematic reviews (nine meta-analyses) and 25 original studies (20 different interventions) met eligibility criteria. Only 3.1% of mentioned studies in previous reviews were from LMIC. Strong and LMIC-specific evidence was found that school-based, multicomponent, and short-term (up to six months) interventions, focused on adolescents primarily (aged 13-18years), can promote PA in children and adolescents from LMIC. Other intervention characteristics had inconclusive evidence due to the low number of studies, low methodological quality, and/or small sample size. CONCLUSION: A minimal part of PA interventions mentioned in previous reviews are from LMIC. Our LMIC-specific analyses showed priorities of implementation and practical implication that can be used in public policies for PA promotion in LMIC.
Authors: James Madrid; Maria Bautista; Juan F Guio; Guillermo Bonilla; Akillefs Betancourt; Adolfo Llinas Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Vivian Welch; Omar Dewidar; Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu; Salman Abdisalam; Abdulah Al Ameer; Victoria I Barbeau; Kevin Brand; Kisanet Kebedom; Maria Benkhalti; Elizabeth Kristjansson; Mohamad Tarek Madani; Alba M Antequera Martín; Christine M Mathew; Jessie McGowan; William McLeod; Hanbyoul Agatha Park; Jennifer Petkovic; Alison Riddle; Peter Tugwell; Mark Petticrew; Jessica Trawin; George A Wells Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-01-18
Authors: Sonja Klingberg; Catherine E Draper; Lisa K Micklesfield; Sara E Benjamin-Neelon; Esther M F van Sluijs Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Zhixiong Zhou; Shanshan Dong; Jun Yin; Quan Fu; Hong Ren; Zenong Yin Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Rosie Mae Henson; Ana Ortigoza; Kevin Martinez-Folgar; Fernando Baeza; Waleska Caiaffa; Alejandra Vives Vergara; Ana V Diez Roux; Gina Lovasi Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Kelly Samara Silva; Jaqueline Aragoni da Silva; Valter Cordeiro Barbosa Filho; Priscila Cristina Dos Santos; Pablo Magno da Silveira; Marcus V V Lopes; Jo Salmon Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 1.817