Department of Sport, Physical Education and Health, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China.
Department of Sports Science and Physical Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Sports Med. 2024 Dec;54(12):3151-3167. doi: 10.1007/s40279-024-02113-1. Epub 2024 Sep 18.
Considering the finite time within a 24-h day, the distribution of time spent on movement behaviours has been found to be associated with health outcomes.
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarise and evaluate the overflow effects of interventions targeting a single behaviour (physical activity, sedentary behaviour/screen time, or sleep) on other non-targeted behaviours among children and adolescents.
Six databases (MEDLINE [Ovid], PsycINFO [ProQuest], EMBASE [Ovid], PubMed, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus [EBSCO]) were searched for relevant studies published before 13 May, 2024. Randomised controlled trials and clustered randomised controlled trials that targeted a single behaviour and also assessed the effects on non-targeted behaviours, comprised of healthy children under the age of 18 years, were included. Movement behaviours can be measured either objectively or subjectively. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials was adopted to evaluate the risk of bias.
A total of 102 studies with 45,998 participants from 21 countries were identified, and 60 of them with 26,183 participants were incorporated into the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis demonstrated that physical activity interventions led to a reduction in the proportion of each day spent in sedentary behaviour (mean difference = - 0.95% of wear time, 95% confidence interval - 1.44, - 0.45, I = 39%). Sedentary behaviour interventions resulted in increased standing time (mean difference = 3.87%, 95% confidence interval 1.99, 5.75, I = 0%). Interventions targeting screen time did not yield changes in physical activity or sleep. The findings on the effectiveness of sleep interventions on non-targeted behaviours and of physical activity interventions on sleep were inconclusive.
Overall, the findings suggested that interventions aimed at increasing physical activity or reducing sedentary behaviour had overflow effects on non-targeted behaviours, but the effect sizes were small. Additional evidence is needed to reach definitive conclusions regarding the impact of behaviour change interventions on sleep and of the overflow effects of sleep interventions.
考虑到一天 24 小时的有限时间,人们发现,运动行为的时间分配与健康结果有关。
本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在总结和评估针对单一行为(体力活动、久坐行为/屏幕时间或睡眠)的干预措施对儿童和青少年其他非目标行为的溢出效应。
在 2024 年 5 月 13 日之前,我们在 6 个数据库(MEDLINE [Ovid]、PsycINFO [ProQuest]、EMBASE [Ovid]、PubMed、Web of Science 和 SPORTDiscus [EBSCO])中搜索了相关研究。纳入了针对单一行为且评估了对非目标行为(包括 18 岁以下健康儿童)影响的随机对照试验和聚类随机对照试验。运动行为可以通过客观或主观的方式进行测量。采用修订后的 Cochrane 随机试验偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。
共确定了来自 21 个国家的 102 项研究,共 45998 名参与者,其中 60 项研究,共 26183 名参与者纳入荟萃分析。荟萃分析表明,体力活动干预可减少每天久坐时间的比例(平均差异=佩戴时间的-0.95%,95%置信区间为-1.44,-0.45,I=39%)。久坐行为干预可增加站立时间(平均差异=3.87%,95%置信区间为 1.99,5.75,I=0%)。针对屏幕时间的干预并未导致体力活动或睡眠的变化。关于睡眠干预对非目标行为的有效性以及体力活动干预对睡眠的有效性的结论尚无定论。
总体而言,研究结果表明,旨在增加体力活动或减少久坐行为的干预措施对非目标行为具有溢出效应,但效应量较小。需要更多证据来得出关于行为改变干预对睡眠的影响以及睡眠干预的溢出效应的明确结论。