Bock Christina, Jarczok Marc N, Litaker David
Mannheim Institute of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Germany.
Mannheim Institute of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Germany.
J Sci Med Sport. 2014 May;17(3):276-82. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2013.04.009. Epub 2013 May 19.
Despite the known benefits of physical activity, the majority of adults in developed countries lead sedentary lifestyles. The community setting is a promising venue for physical activity-promoting interventions. Our objectives were to investigate the effectiveness of community-based physical activity interventions by mode of delivery, study quality and to analyse intervention effectiveness in different subgroups in the population.
We conducted a systematic literature review in Medline and other databases to identify controlled, community-based physical activity interventions published between 2001 and 2012.
We performed several post hoc subgroup comparisons for mode of delivery, study quality and selected population characteristics, using net per cent change in physical activity outcomes between baseline and follow-up as an effect measure.
We identified 55 studies on exercise/walking sessions, face-to-face counselling, public campaigns and interventions by mail, the Internet and telephone presenting data on 20,532 participants. Overall, half of the studies reported positive physical activity outcomes (total net per cent change: 16.4%; p=0.159; net per cent change for high-quality studies, i.e. studies meeting more than 5 out of 7 quality criteria: 16.2%; p=0.010). Interventions using face-to-face counselling or group sessions were most effective (net per cent change: 35.0%; p=0.014). Net per cent change was also higher in studies exclusively tailored to women (27.7%; p=0.005) or specific ethnic groups (38.9%; p=0.034).
This systematic review supports the effectiveness of community-based physical activity interventions in high-quality studies. Our results suggest that interventions using personal contact as well as tailored interventions are most promising.
尽管已知体育活动有益,但发达国家的大多数成年人仍过着久坐不动的生活方式。社区环境是促进体育活动干预措施的一个有前景的场所。我们的目的是按实施方式、研究质量调查基于社区的体育活动干预措施的有效性,并分析该人群中不同亚组的干预效果。
我们在Medline和其他数据库中进行了系统的文献综述,以识别2001年至2012年间发表的基于社区的对照体育活动干预措施。
我们对实施方式、研究质量和选定的人群特征进行了多项事后亚组比较,将基线和随访之间体育活动结果的净百分比变化用作效应量度。
我们确定了55项关于锻炼/步行课程、面对面咨询、公共宣传活动以及通过邮件、互联网和电话进行的干预措施的研究,这些研究提供了20532名参与者的数据。总体而言,一半的研究报告了积极的体育活动结果(总净百分比变化:16.4%;p=0.159;高质量研究,即符合7项质量标准中5项以上的研究的净百分比变化:16.2%;p=0.010)。使用面对面咨询或小组课程的干预措施最有效(净百分比变化:35.0%;p=0.014)。专门针对女性(27.7%;p=0.005)或特定种族群体(38.9%;p=0.034)的研究中,净百分比变化也更高。
这项系统综述支持高质量研究中基于社区的体育活动干预措施的有效性。我们的结果表明,使用个人接触的干预措施以及量身定制的干预措施最有前景。