Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33397302›Full record

SynthesisBMC family practice2021

Sedentary behaviour among general practitioners: a systematic review.

Richard S Mayne, Nigel D Hart, Neil Heron

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC family practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Prevalence and Predictors Among Doctors.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Richard S MayneCentre for Medical Education, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK. rmayne02@qub.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-9843-678X
Nigel D HartCentre for Medical Education, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Neil HeronCentre for Public Health, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Queen's University Belfast · GB

Funding

Department of Health, Northern Ireland EAT/5332/19
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSedentary behaviour is when someone is awake, in a sitting, lying or reclining posture and is an independent risk factor for multiple causes of morbidity and mortality. A dose-response relationship has been demonstrated, whereby increasing sedentary time corresponds with increasing mortality rate. This study aimed to identify current levels of sedentary behaviour among General Practitioners (GPs), by examining and synthesising how sedentary behaviour has been measured in the primary care literature.

methodsA systematic review was conducted to identify studies relating to levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Searches were performed using Medline®, Embase®, PscycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, from inception of databases until January 2020, with a subsequent search of grey literature. Articles were assessed for quality and bias, with extraction of relevant data.

resultsThe search criteria returned 1707 studies. Thirty four full texts were reviewed and 2 studies included in the final review. Both were cross-sectional surveys using self-reported estimation of sedentary time within the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Keohane et al. examined GP trainees and GP trainers in Ireland. 60% reported spending in excess of 7 h sitting each day, 24% between 4 and 7 h, and 16% less than or equal to 4 h. Suija et al. examined female GPs in Estonia. The mean reported daily sitting time was 6 h and 36 min, with 56% sitting for over 6 h per day. Both studies were of satisfactory methodological quality but had a high risk of bias.

conclusionThere is a paucity of research examining current levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Objective data is needed to determine GPs' current levels of sedentary behaviour, particularly in light of the increase in remote consulting as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Indexed as

Health PromotionPandemicsSedentary BehaviorSelf ReportCOVID-19General PractitionersHumansRisk FactorsSARS-CoV-2General practicePhysical activityPrimary careSedentary behaviourSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33397302
PMCPMC7779649
OpenAlexW3110670436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.