Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39095805›Full record

SynthesisThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2024

Are physical activity referral scheme components associated with increased physical activity, scheme uptake, and adherence rate? A meta-analysis and meta-regression.

Eriselda Mino, Klaus Pfeifer, Coral L Hanson, Michael Schuler, Anna Brandmeier, Sarah Klamroth, Inga Naber, Anja Weissenfels, Sheona McHale, Karim Abu-Omar and 5 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

15 authors.

Eriselda MinoDepartment of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Gebbertstraße 123b, Erlangen, 91058, Germany. eriselda.mino@fau.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1885-0009
Klaus PfeiferDepartment of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Gebbertstraße 123b, Erlangen, 91058, Germany.
Coral L HansonSchool of Health and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Sighthill Campus, Edinburgh, EH11 4DN, UK.
Michael SchulerInstitute of Clinical Epidemiology and Biometry, University of Würzburg, Josef-Schneider-Str. 2/ D7, Würzburg, 97080, Germany.
Anna BrandmeierDepartment of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Gebbertstraße 123b, Erlangen, 91058, Germany.
Sarah KlamrothDepartment of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Gebbertstraße 123b, Erlangen, 91058, Germany.
Inga NaberDepartment of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Gebbertstraße 123b, Erlangen, 91058, Germany.
Anja WeissenfelsDepartment of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Gebbertstraße 123b, Erlangen, 91058, Germany.
Sheona McHaleSchool of Health and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Sighthill Campus, Edinburgh, EH11 4DN, UK.
Karim Abu-OmarDepartment of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Gebbertstraße 123b, Erlangen, 91058, Germany.
Peter GeliusInstitute of Sport Sciences, Université de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Stephen WhitingSpecial Initiative for Noncommunicable Diseases and Innovation (SNI), WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Kremlin WickramasingheSpecial Initiative for Noncommunicable Diseases and Innovation (SNI), WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Gauden GaleaSpecial Initiative for Noncommunicable Diseases and Innovation (SNI), WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Wolfgang GeidlDepartment of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Gebbertstraße 123b, Erlangen, 91058, Germany.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Gesundheit ZMV I 1 - 2519FSB109World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysical activity referral schemes (PARS) are composed of various components, such as a written prescription or a person-centered approach. The role of these components in their effectiveness is yet to be understood. Therefore, we aimed to explore the relationships between PARS components and physical activity, scheme uptake, and adherence rate; and to estimate the effect of PARS.

methodsWe searched Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, HTA, Wiley Online Library, SAGE Journals, Taylor & Francis, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, and CORE. Eligible studies were published between 1990 and November 2023 in English or German, investigated PARS with participants aged ≥ 16 years, and reported physical activity, scheme uptake, or scheme adherence. Separate random-effects meta-analysis by comparison group were conducted for physical activity. Scheme uptake and adherence rates were pooled using proportional meta-analysis. The components were analyzed via univariate meta-regression. We rated the risk of bias using RoB2 and ROBINS-I, and the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

resultsFifty-two studies were included. PARS were more effective in increasing physical activity than usual care (k = 11, n = 5046, Hedges' g = 0.18, 95%CI 0.12 to 0.25; high certainty of evidence). When PARS were compared with physical activity advice or enhanced scheme versions, the pooled Hedges' g values for physical activity were -0.06 (k = 5, n = 1082, 95%CI -0.21 to 0.10; low certainty of evidence), and 0.07 (k = 9, n = 2647, 95%CI -0.03 to 0.18; low certainty of evidence) respectively. Scheme uptake was 87% (95%CI 77% to 94%, k = 14, n = 5000) across experimental studies and 68% (95%CI 51% to 83%, k = 14, n = 25,048) across non-experimental studies. Pooled scheme adherence was 68% (95%CI 55% to 80%, k = 16, n = 3939) and 53% (95%CI 42% to 63%, k = 18, n = 14,605). The meta-regression did not detect any significant relationships between components and physical activity or scheme uptake. A person-centered approach, screening, and brief advice were positively associated with scheme adherence, while physical activity sessions were negatively associated.

conclusionPARS are more effective in increasing physical activity than usual care only. We did not identify any components as significant predictors of physical activity and scheme uptake. Four components predicted scheme adherence, indicating that the component-effectiveness relationship warrants further research.

Indexed as

ExercisePatient ComplianceReferral and ConsultationAdultHealth PromotionHumansExercise prescriptionExercise referral schemePhysical activityPhysical activity prescriptionPhysical activity referral schemeReferral and consultation

Identifiers

PMID39095805
PMCPMC11295389

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.