Insufficient Reporting of Factors Associated With Exercise Referral Scheme Uptake, Attendance, and Adherence: A Systematic Review of Reviews.
PRISMA
compliance
physical activity
prescription
Journal
Journal of physical activity & health
ISSN: 1543-5474
Titre abrégé: J Phys Act Health
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101189457
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 08 2019
01 08 2019
Historique:
aheadofprint:
28
07
2019
received:
04
07
2018
revised:
08
02
2019
accepted:
13
04
2019
pubmed:
18
6
2019
medline:
20
5
2020
entrez:
18
6
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Exercise referral schemes (ERS) are prescribed programs to tackle physical inactivity and associated noncommunicable disease. Inconsistencies in reporting, recording, and delivering ERS make it challenging to identify what works, why, and for whom. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guided this narrative review of reviews. Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews of ERS. Inclusion criteria and quality assessed through A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Data on uptake, attendance, and adherence were extracted. Eleven reviews met inclusion criteria. AMSTAR quality was medium. Uptake ranged between 35% and 81%. Groups more likely to take up ERS included (1) females and (2) older adults. Attendance ranged from 12% to 49%. Men were more likely to attend ERS. Effect of medical diagnosis upon uptake and attendance was inconsistent. Exercises prescribed were unreported; therefore, adherence to exercise prescriptions was unreported. The influence of theoretically informed approaches on uptake, attendance, and adherence was generally lacking; however, self-determination, peer support, and supervision were reported as influencing attendance. There was insufficient reporting across studies about uptake, attendance, and adherence. Complex interventions such as ERS require consistent definitions, recording, and reporting of these key facets, but this is not evident from the existing literature.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Exercise referral schemes (ERS) are prescribed programs to tackle physical inactivity and associated noncommunicable disease. Inconsistencies in reporting, recording, and delivering ERS make it challenging to identify what works, why, and for whom.
METHODS
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guided this narrative review of reviews. Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews of ERS. Inclusion criteria and quality assessed through A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Data on uptake, attendance, and adherence were extracted.
RESULTS
Eleven reviews met inclusion criteria. AMSTAR quality was medium. Uptake ranged between 35% and 81%. Groups more likely to take up ERS included (1) females and (2) older adults. Attendance ranged from 12% to 49%. Men were more likely to attend ERS. Effect of medical diagnosis upon uptake and attendance was inconsistent. Exercises prescribed were unreported; therefore, adherence to exercise prescriptions was unreported. The influence of theoretically informed approaches on uptake, attendance, and adherence was generally lacking; however, self-determination, peer support, and supervision were reported as influencing attendance.
CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient reporting across studies about uptake, attendance, and adherence. Complex interventions such as ERS require consistent definitions, recording, and reporting of these key facets, but this is not evident from the existing literature.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31203705
pii: jpah.2018-0341
doi: 10.1123/jpah.2018-0341
doi:
pii:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM