Department of Natural and Sociological Sciences, Heidelberg University of Education, Keplerstrasse 87, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Georg- Brauchle-Ring 62, 80992 Munich, Germany.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jul 20;17(14):5231. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17145231.
This systematic review aims to evaluate the extent of sex/gender consideration and effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce sedentary behaviour (SB). We searched for randomised or non-randomised controlled trials with the outcome SB and a sex/gender analysis in eleven electronic databases. Sixty-seven studies were included. Sex/gender considerations were qualitatively rated. Sex/gender was reported separately in 44.8% of studies, 14.9% of studies conducted a sex/gender interaction analysis, and 19.4% enrolled either girls or boys. SB was significantly reduced for girls in 16.4%, for boys in 11.9% and for both in 13.4%. No sex/gender intervention effect was found in 38.8%. According to the qualitative rating, studies without significant sex/gender effects reached "detailed" rating twice as often as studies finding a significant intervention effect for either girls or boys, or both. Overall, no clear pattern according to the qualitative rating and in terms of intervention effectiveness can be drawn. The results reveal a lack of sufficient sex/gender information in intervention planning and delivery. Further research should consider analysing sex/gender intervention effects as well as consider sex/gender inclusive intervention planning and delivery.
本系统评价旨在评估考虑性别因素和设计干预措施以减少久坐行为 (SB) 的效果。我们在 11 个电子数据库中搜索了具有 SB 结局和性别分析的随机或非随机对照试验。共纳入 67 项研究。对性别因素进行了定性评估。44.8%的研究分别报告了性别,14.9%的研究进行了性别交互分析,19.4%的研究纳入了女孩或男孩。16.4%的女孩、11.9%的男孩和 13.4%的女孩和男孩的 SB 显著减少。38.8%的研究未发现性别干预效果。根据定性评估,没有显著性别效果的研究达到“详细”评级的频率是发现女孩或男孩或两者均有显著干预效果的研究的两倍。总体而言,根据定性评估和干预效果都没有明显的模式可循。结果表明,干预计划和实施中缺乏足够的性别信息。进一步的研究应考虑分析性别干预效果,并考虑性别包容的干预计划和实施。