scholarly journals An evidence‐update on the prospective relationship between childhood sedentary behaviour and biomedical health indicators: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (9) ◽  
pp. 833-849 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Ekris ◽  
T. M. Altenburg ◽  
A. S. Singh ◽  
K. I. Proper ◽  
M. W. Heymans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Health Indicators

scholarly journals An evidence-update on the prospective relationship between childhood sedentary behaviour and biomedical health indicators: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 712-714 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. van Ekris ◽  
T.M. Altenburg ◽  
A.S. Singh ◽  
K.I. Proper ◽  
M.W. Heymans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Health Indicators

Systematic review of sedentary behaviour and health indicators in the early years (aged 0–4 years)

2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 753-772 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allana G. LeBlanc ◽  
John C. Spence ◽  
Valerie Carson ◽  
Sarah Connor Gorber ◽  
Carrie Dillman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cognitive Development ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Motor Skill ◽  
Television Viewing ◽  
Health Indicators ◽  
Psychosocial Health ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Cardiometabolic Health ◽  
Motor Skill Development

Accumulating evidence suggests that young children spend excessive time being sedentary. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the relationship between sedentary behaviours and health indicators during the early years (ages 0–4 years). Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, this review aimed to present the best available evidence on the threshold of sedentary behaviour associated with healthy measures of adiposity, bone health, motor skill development, psychosocial health, cognitive development, and cardiometabolic health indicators in infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Online databases, personal libraries, and government documents were searched for relevant studies. Studies that included an intervention (or experimental) group or prospective analysis were included. Twenty-one unique studies, representing 23 papers and 22 417 participants, met inclusion criteria; 7 studies included information on infants, 13 on toddlers, and 10 on preschoolers. Of these, 11, 6, and 8 studies reported data on adiposity, psychosocial health, and cognitive development, respectively. No included study reported on motor skill development, bone, or cardiometabolic health indicators. In conclusion, this review found low- to moderate-quality evidence to suggest that increased television viewing is associated with unfavourable measures of adiposity and decreased scores on measures of psychosocial health and cognitive development. No evidence existed to indicate that television viewing is beneficial for improving psychosocial health or cognitive development. In several instances a dose–response relationship was evident between increased time spent watching television and decreased psychosocial health or cognitive development. This work may be used as evidence to inform public health guidelines. (PROSPERO registration: CRD4011001280.)

scholarly journals Interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour in 0–5-year-olds: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2016 ◽  
Vol 52 (5) ◽  
pp. 314-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine L Downing ◽  
Jill A Hnatiuk ◽  
Trina Hinkley ◽  
Jo Salmon ◽  
Kylie D Hesketh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Early Childhood ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Screen Time ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Intervention Effect ◽  
English Language Journal ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Aim or objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of behavioural interventions that report sedentary behaviour outcomes during early childhood.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesAcademic Search Complete, CINAHL Complete, Global Health, MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus with Full Text and EMBASE electronic databases were searched in March 2016.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesInclusion criteria were: (1) published in a peer-reviewed English language journal; (2) sedentary behaviour outcomes reported; (3) randomised controlled trial (RCT) study design; and (4) participants were children with a mean age of ≤5.9 years and not yet attending primary/elementary school at postintervention.Results31 studies were included in the systematic review and 17 studies in the meta-analysis. The overall mean difference in screen time outcomes between groups was −17.12 (95% CI −28.82 to −5.42) min/day with a significant overall intervention effect (Z=2.87, p=0.004). The overall mean difference in sedentary time between groups was −18.91 (95% CI −33.31 to −4.51) min/day with a significant overall intervention effect (Z=2.57, p=0.01). Subgroup analyses suggest that for screen time, interventions of ≥6 months duration and those conducted in a community-based setting are most effective. For sedentary time, interventions targeting physical activity (and reporting changes in sedentary time) are more effective than those directly targeting sedentary time.Summary/conclusionsDespite heterogeneity in study methods and results, overall interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour in early childhood show significant reductions, suggesting that this may be an opportune time to intervene.Trial registration numberCRD42015017090.

scholarly journals Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Esmée A. Bakker ◽  
Yvonne A. W. Hartman ◽  
Maria T. E. Hopman ◽  
Nicola D. Hopkins ◽  
Lee E. F. Graves ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Validity And Reliability

scholarly journals Systematic review of the relationships between sedentary behaviour and health indicators in the early years (0–4 years)

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (S5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Veronica J. Poitras ◽  
Casey E. Gray ◽  
Xanne Janssen ◽  
Salome Aubert ◽  
Valerie Carson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Health Indicators ◽  
Early Years

scholarly journals Impact of child summertime obesity interventions on body mass index, and weight-related behaviours: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e017144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennette P Moreno ◽  
Lydi-Anne Vézina-Im ◽  
Elizabeth M Vaughan ◽  
Tom Baranowski
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Overweight And Obesity ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
School Age

IntroductionIn previous studies, it has been found that on average, children consistently gained weight during the summer months at an increased rate compared with the 9-month school year. This contributed to an increased prevalence of overweight and obesity in children. Several obesity-related interventions have occurred during or targeting the summer months. We propose to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of obesity prevention and treatment interventions for school-age children conducted during the summer or targeting the summer months when children are not in school on their body mass index (BMI), or weight-related behaviours.Methods and analysesA literature search will be conducted by the first author (JPM) using MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE and Proquest Dissertations and Theses databases from the date of inception to present. Studies must examine interventions that address the modification or promotion of weight-related behaviours (eg, dietary patterns, eating behaviours, physical activity (PA), sedentary behaviour or sleep) and target school-age children (ages 5–18). The primary outcomes will be changes from baseline to postintervention and/or the last available follow-up measurement in weight, BMI, BMI percentile, standardised BMI or per cent body fat. Secondary outcomes will include changes in dietary intake, PA, sedentary behaviour or sleep. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised and non-randomised studies, as appropriate.Ethics and disseminationBecause this is a protocol for a systematic review, ethics approval will not be required. The findings will be disseminated via presentations at scientific conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. All amendments to the protocol will be documented and dated and reported in the PROSPERO trial registry.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016041750

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document