scholarly journals Postdiagnosis sedentary behavior and health outcomes in cancer survivors: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Cancer ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 126 (4) ◽  
pp. 861-869 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher T. V. Swain ◽  
Nga H. Nguyen ◽  
Tobyn Eagles ◽  
Jeff K. Vallance ◽  
Terry Boyle ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 1078-1085
Author(s):  
Jo-Ana D Chase ◽  
Jennifer Otmanowski ◽  
Sheri Rowland ◽  
Pamela S Cooper

Abstract Sedentary behavior (SB) is associated with numerous negative health outcomes, independent of physical activity behavior. Older adults are the most sedentary population in the United States. Understanding the effects and characteristics of existing interventions to reduce SB can inform practice, future research, and public health initiatives to improve older adults’ health. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine existing SB intervention research among older adults and quantitatively synthesize intervention effects. Comprehensive searches were conducted to identify studies testing interventions to reduce SB time among adults at least 60 years old. Data on study design, intervention content and delivery, and participant characteristics were extracted from eligible studies. Standardized mean difference effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were synthesized using a random-effects model for two-group pretest–posttest design studies. Twenty-two reports describing 17 distinct studies were included in the narrative synthesis, with eight studies included in the meta-analysis (k = 8; n = 1,024). Most interventions were theory-driven and employed multiple strategies, including education, self-monitoring, and goal setting. Although SB interventions significantly reduced total sedentary time, the overall effect was small (d = −0.25, 95% confidence interval [−0.50, 0.00], p = .05). Studies were significantly heterogeneous (Q = 22.34, p < .01); however, the small number of comparisons prevented moderator analyses. Practitioners should employ diverse SB-specific strategies to encourage older adults to reduce time spent sedentary. To develop public health programs targeting SB in older adults, future research should include measures of time spent in specific SB and duration/number of breaks in sedentary time and investigate SB intervention effects on health outcomes.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mandi L. Pratt-Chapman ◽  
Ash B. Alpert ◽  
Daniel A. Castillo

Abstract Purpose Cancer research on sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations is gaining momentum. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine what is currently known in the research literature regarding patient-reported health outcomes after cancer treatment among SGM populations. Methods In March 2021, a medical librarian conducted a systematic keyword search on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The primary inclusion criterion was assessment of at least one physical, psychosocial, emotional, or functional patient-reported health outcome related to the impacts of cancer diagnosis and/or treatment. Articles that met inclusion criteria were reviewed in their entirety, charted in a Word Table, and assessed for quality. Quality considerations included study design, sampling approach, diversity of sample, measures used, and analytic procedures. Studies were synthesized based on type of cancer study participants experienced. Results Sixty-four studies were included in the final analysis: most were quantitative, secondary analyses or cross-sectional studies with convenience samples, and focused on people with a history of breast or prostate cancer. Differences between sexual minority men and women in terms of coping and resilience were noted. Few studies reported on experiences of transgender persons and none reported on experiences of intersex persons. Conclusions A growing literature describes the patient-reported health outcomes of SGM people with a history of cancer. This study summarizes important between-group differences among SGM and heterosexual, cisgender counterparts that are critical for clinicians to consider when providing care. Implications for cancer survivors Sexual orientation and gender identity are relevant to cancer survivors’ health outcomes. Subgroups of SGM people have differential experiences and outcomes related to cancer and its impacts.


2020 ◽  
Vol 218 ◽  
pp. 166-177.e2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liel N. Cohn ◽  
Petros Pechlivanoglou ◽  
Yuna Lee ◽  
Sanjay Mahant ◽  
Julia Orkin ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e043722
Author(s):  
Naomi Priest ◽  
Kate Doery ◽  
Mandy Truong ◽  
Shuaijun Guo ◽  
Ryan Perry ◽  
...  

IntroductionRacism is a critical determinant of health and health inequities for children and youth. This protocol aims to update the first systematic review conducted by Priest et al (2013), including a meta-analysis of findings. Based on previous empirical data, it is anticipated that child and youth health will be negatively impacted by racism. Findings from this review will provide updated evidence of effect sizes across outcomes and identify moderators and mediators of relationships between racism and health.Methods and analysisThis systematic review and meta-analysis will include studies that examine associations between experiences of racism and racial discrimination with health outcomes of children and youth aged 0–24 years. Exposure measures include self-reported or proxy reported systemic, interpersonal and intrapersonal racism. Outcome measures include general health and well-being, physical health, mental health, biological markers, healthcare utilisation and health behaviours. A comprehensive search of studies from the earliest time available to October 2020 will be conducted. A random effects meta-analysis will examine the average effect of racism on a range of health outcomes. Study-level moderation will test the difference in effect sizes with regard to various sample and exposure characteristics. This review has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.Ethics and disseminationThis review will provide evidence for future research within the field and help to support policy and practice development. Results will be widely disseminated to both academic and non-academic audiences through peer-review publications, community summaries and presentations to research, policy, practice and community audiences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020184055.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e042212
Author(s):  
Hamish Foster ◽  
Peter Polz ◽  
Frances Mair ◽  
Jason Gill ◽  
Catherine A O'Donnell

IntroductionCombinations of unhealthy lifestyle factors are strongly associated with mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer. It is unclear how socioeconomic status (SES) affects those associations. Lower SES groups may be disproportionately vulnerable to the effects of unhealthy lifestyle factors compared with higher SES groups via interactions with other factors associated with low SES (eg, stress) or via accelerated biological ageing. This systematic review aims to synthesise studies that examine how SES moderates the association between lifestyle factor combinations and adverse health outcomes. Greater understanding of how lifestyle risk varies across socioeconomic spectra could reduce adverse health by (1) identifying novel high-risk groups or targets for future interventions and (2) informing research, policy and interventions that aim to support healthy lifestyles in socioeconomically deprived communities.Methods and analysisThree databases will be searched (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL) from inception to March 2020. Reference lists, citations and grey literature will also be searched. Inclusion criteria are: (1) prospective cohort studies; (2) investigations of two key exposures: (a) lifestyle factor combinations of at least three lifestyle factors (eg, smoking, physical activity and diet) and (b) SES (eg, income, education or poverty index); (3) an assessment of the impact of SES on the association between combinations of unhealthy lifestyle factors and health outcomes; (4) at least one outcome from—mortality (all cause, CVD and cancer), CVD or cancer incidence. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts and full texts of included studies. Data extraction will focus on cohort characteristics, exposures, direction and magnitude of SES effects, methods and quality (via Newcastle-Ottawa Scale). If appropriate, a meta-analysis, pooling the effects of SES, will be performed. Alternatively, a synthesis without meta-analysis will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication, professional networks, social media and conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020172588.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document