Dataset Information

Effects of reducing sedentary behaviour duration by increasing physical activity, on cognitive function, brain function and structure across the lifespan: a systematic review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Greater engagement in sedentary behaviours has been related to poorer cognitive functions in epidemiological research. However, the effects of reducing sedentary behaviour duration on cognitive function, brain function, and structure remain poorly understood. This systematic review aims to synthesise the evidence on the effects of reducing sedentary behaviour duration by increasing time spent in physical activity on cognitive function, brain structure and function in apparently healthy children, adolescents and adults.

Methods and analysis

The protocol follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The literature search will be conducted (search dates: August-September 2022) across six databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (via EBSCO Host), PsycINFO (via ProQuest), SPORTDiscus and Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index). The inclusion criteria are as follows: randomised and non-randomised experimental studies as defined by the Cochrane Handbook, published in English, in peer-reviewed journals, and as theses or dissertations. References of included papers will be screened for additional studies. Acute and chronic interventions targeting children (≥ 4 years), adolescents, younger adults (≥ 18-40 years), middle-aged (40-64 years) and older adults (65+ years) will be eligible. Methodological quality will be assessed with the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment tool for quantitative studies. Qualitative synthesis will be stratified by intervention type (acute vs chronic), intervention content (reducing sedentary time or interrupting prolonged sitting) and outcome (cognitive, brain structure and function).

Ethics and dissemination

No primary data collection will be conducted as part of this systematic review. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and social media.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020200998.

SUBMITTER: Pindus DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9594536 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects of reducing sedentary behaviour duration by increasing physical activity, on cognitive function, brain function and structure across the lifespan: a systematic review protocol.

Pindus Dominika M DM Selzer-Ninomiya Ana A Nayak Apurva A Pionke J J JJ Raine Lauren B LB

BMJ open 20221021 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>Greater engagement in sedentary behaviours has been related to poorer cognitive functions in epidemiological research. However, the effects of reducing sedentary behaviour duration on cognitive function, brain function, and structure remain poorly understood. This systematic review aims to synthesise the evidence on the effects of reducing sedentary behaviour duration by increasing time spent in physical activity on cognitive function, brain structure and function in apparen ...[more]

PMID: 36270758

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPreliminary evidence suggests osteoarthritis is a risk factor for cognitive decline. One potential reason is 87% of adults with osteoarthritis are inactive, and low moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and high sedentary behaviour are each risk factors for cognitive decline. Thus, we investigated whether a community-based intervention to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour could improve cognitive function among adults with osteoarthritis.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of a six month, proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial of a community-based, technology-enabled counselling program to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour among adults with knee osteoarthritis. The Immediate Intervention (n = 30) received a Fitbit® Flex™ and four bi-weekly activity counselling sessions; the Delayed Intervention (n = 31) received the same intervention two months later. We assessed episodic memory and working memory using the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery. Between-group differences (Immediate Intervention vs. Delayed Intervention) in cognitive performance were evaluated following the primary intervention (i.e., Baseline - 2 Months) using intention-to-treat.ResultsThe intervention did not significantly improve cognitive function; however, we estimated small average improvements in episodic memory for the Immediate Intervention vs. Delayed Intervention (estimated mean difference: 1.27; 95% CI [- 9.27, 11.81]; d = 0.10).ConclusionThis small study did not show that a short activity promotion intervention improved cognitive health among adults with osteoarthritis. However, the effects of increased moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and reduced sedentary behaviour are likely to be small and thus we recommend subsequent studies use larger sample sizes and measure changes in cognitive function over longer intervals.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration System: NCT02315664 ; registered 12 December, 2014; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02315664?cond=NCT02315664&rank=1.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough studies showed that physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) were associated with cardiometabolic risk factors and cognitive function, both independent and combined associations among them are inconsistent. Cardiometabolic risk factors are also associated with cognitive function, but research of children is limited. Additionally, the brain level mechanisms have not been fully established. The proposed study aims to explore the associations and mechanisms of PA and SB on cognitive function and cardiometabolic risk factors in children.Methods and analysisThis is a school-based prospective cohort study. A total of 8324 participants of this study are primary school students aged 7-12 years old who are followed up every 2 years from January 2017 to December 2026. We used a stratified cluster random sampling to select five primary schools in Guangzhou, China. There are three phases at baseline. At phase I, we collect PA, SB and cognitive function by questionnaires and also conduct anthropometric and biochemical measurements in all participants. At phase II, PA, SB and cognitive function are measured respectively by accelerometers and cognitive tasks among participants randomly selected from four subgroups with different SB and PA levels. At phase III, event-related potentials are recorded using electroencephalogram during a cognitive task among participants randomly selected from phase II. We plan to follow-up all participants until they graduate from high school. The process applied at baseline and follow-up are approximately identical.Ethics and disseminationProcedures described in this manuscript have been approved by the Ethical Review Committee for Biomedical Research, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University (L2016-010). All parents or guardians of participants signed the informed consent form voluntarily before participating in the study. The findings of the study will be published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT03582709.

Project description:BackgroundSleep, sedentary behaviour, physical activity, and the composition of these movement behaviours across the 24-h day are associated with cognitive function in early years children. This study used a Goldilocks day compositional data analysis approach to identify the optimal duration of sleep, sedentary behaviour, light physical activity, and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity associated with desired cognitive function outcomes in early years children.MethodsThis cross-sectional study included 858 children aged 2.8-5.5 years from the Sleep and Activity Database for the Early Years. 24-h movement behaviours (sleep, sedentary behaviour, light physical activity, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity) were measured using ActiGraph accelerometers. Cognitive function was measured using three tasks from the Early Years Toolbox: visual-spatial working memory, response inhibition, and expressive vocabulary. A Goldilocks day compositional data analysis approach was used in R software to identify the optimal time-use compositions associated with the best 10% of the cognitive function scores.ResultsThe movement behaviour composition and the relative time spent in sleep and sedentary behaviour but not different intensities of physical activity were significantly associated with working memory (P ≤ 0.01). The movement behaviour composition and relative time spent in sleep, sedentary behaviour, and different intensities of physical activity were not significantly associated with response inhibition or expressive vocabulary (P > 0.2). Therefore, optimal time use was only determined for working memory. Optimal daily durations for working memory were observed with 11:00 (hr:min) of sleep, 5:42 of sedentary behaviour, 5:06 of light physical activity, and 2:12 of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.ConclusionWorking memory was the only cognitive function outcome related to the 24-h movement behaviour composition. Optimal sleep for working memory was consistent with current recommended durations, while optimal moderate-to-vigorous physical activity greatly exceeded minimal recommended levels. Optimal sedentary behaviour was longer and light physical activity was shorter than the sample average.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of a school based intervention to increase physical activity, reduce sedentary behaviour, and increase fruit and vegetable consumption in children.DesignCluster randomised controlled trial.Setting60 primary schools in the south west of England.ParticipantsPrimary school children who were in school year 4 (age 8-9 years) at recruitment and baseline assessment, in year 5 during the intervention, and at the end of year 5 (age 9-10) at follow-up assessment.InterventionThe Active for Life Year 5 (AFLY5) intervention consisted of teacher training, provision of lesson and child-parent interactive homework plans, all materials required for lessons and homework, and written materials for school newsletters and parents. The intervention was delivered when children were in school year 5 (age 9-10 years). Schools allocated to control received standard teaching.Main outcome measuresThe pre-specified primary outcomes were accelerometer assessed minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day, accelerometer assessed minutes of sedentary behaviour per day, and reported daily consumption of servings of fruit and vegetables.Results60 schools with more than 2221 children were recruited; valid data were available for fruit and vegetable consumption for 2121 children, for accelerometer assessed physical activity and sedentary behaviour for 1252 children, and for secondary outcomes for between 1825 and 2212 children for the main analyses. None of the three primary outcomes differed between children in schools allocated to the AFLY5 intervention and those allocated to the control group. The difference in means comparing the intervention group with the control group was -1.35 (95% confidence interval -5.29 to 2.59) minutes per day for moderate to vigorous physical activity, -0.11 (-9.71 to 9.49) minutes per day for sedentary behaviour, and 0.08 (-0.12 to 0.28) servings per day for fruit and vegetable consumption. The intervention was effective for three out of nine of the secondary outcomes after multiple testing was taken into account: self reported time spent in screen viewing at the weekend (-21 (-37 to -4) minutes per day), self reported servings of snacks per day (-0.22 (-0.38 to -0.05)), and servings of high energy drinks per day (-0.26 (-0.43 to -0.10)) were all reduced. Results from a series of sensitivity analyses testing different assumptions about missing data and from per protocol analyses produced similar results.ConclusionThe findings suggest that the AFLY5 school based intervention is not effective at increasing levels of physical activity, decreasing sedentary behaviour, and increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in primary school children. Change in these activities may require more intensive behavioural interventions with children or upstream interventions at the family and societal level, as well as at the school environment level. These findings have relevance for researchers, policy makers, public health practitioners, and doctors who are involved in health promotion, policy making, and commissioning services. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN50133740.

Project description:BackgroundImproving physical activity and reducing sedentary behavior represent important areas for intervention in childhood in order to reduce the burden of chronic disease related to obesity and physical inactivity in later life. This paper aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of a multi-arm primary school-based intervention to increase physical activity and/or reduce sedentary time in 8-9 year old children (Transform-Us!).MethodsModelled cost-utility analysis, using costs and effects from a cluster randomized controlled trial of a 30-month intervention that used pedagogical and environmental strategies to reduce and break up sedentary behaviour (SB-I), promote physical activity (PA-I), or a combined approach (PA + SB-I), compared to current practice. A validated multiple-cohort lifetable model (ACE-Obesity Policy model) estimated the obesity and physical activity-related health outcomes (measured as change in body mass index and change in metabolic equivalent task minutes respectively) and healthcare cost-savings over the cohort's lifetime from the public-payer perspective, assuming the intervention was delivered to all 8-9 year old children attending Australian Government primary schools. Sensitivity analyses tested the impact on cost-effectiveness of varying key input parameters, including maintenance of intervention effect assumptions.ResultsCost-effectiveness results demonstrated that, when compared to control schools, the PA-I and SB-I intervention arms were "dominant", meaning that they resulted in net health benefits and healthcare cost-savings if the intervention effects were maintained. When the costs and effects of these intervention arms were extrapolated to the Australian population, results suggested significant potential as obesity prevention measures (PA-I: 60,780 HALYs saved (95% UI 15,007-109,413), healthcare cost-savings AUD641M (95% UI AUD165M-$1.1B); SB-I: 61,126 HALYs saved (95% UI 11,770 - 111,249), healthcare cost-savings AUD654M (95% UI AUD126M-1.2B)). The PA-I and SB-I interventions remained cost-effective in sensitivity analysis, assuming the full decay of intervention effect after 10 years.ConclusionsThe PA-I and SB-I Transform-Us! intervention arms represent good value for money and could lead to health benefits and healthcare cost-savings arising from the prevention of chronic disease in later life if intervention effects are sustained.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN83725066). Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number (ACTRN12609000715279).

Project description:BackgroundStroke survivors are often physically inactive as well as sedentary,and may sit for long periods of time each day. This increases cardiometabolic risk and has impacts on physical and other functions. Interventions to reduce or interrupt periods of sedentary time, as well as to increase physical activity after stroke, could reduce the risk of secondary cardiovascular events and mortality during life after stroke.ObjectivesTo determine whether interventions designed to reduce sedentary behaviour after stroke, or interventions with the potential to do so, can reduce the risk of death or secondary vascular events, modify cardiovascular risk, and reduce sedentary behaviour.Search methodsIn December 2019, we searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, and PEDro. We also searched registers of ongoing trials, screened reference lists, and contacted experts in the field.Selection criteriaRandomised trials comparing interventions to reduce sedentary time with usual care, no intervention, or waiting-list control, attention control, sham intervention or adjunct intervention. We also included interventions intended to fragment or interrupt periods of sedentary behaviour.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently selected studies and performed 'Risk of bias' assessments. We analyzed data using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence with the GRADE approach.Main resultsWe included 10 studies with 753 people with stroke. Five studies used physical activity interventions, four studies used a multicomponent lifestyle intervention, and one study used an intervention to reduce and interrupt sedentary behaviour. In all studies, the risk of bias was high or unclear in two or more domains. Nine studies had high risk of bias in at least one domain. The interventions did not increase or reduce deaths (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.03; 10 studies, 753 participants; low-certainty evidence), the incidence of recurrent cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.01; 10 studies, 753 participants; low-certainty evidence), the incidence of falls (and injuries) (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 10 studies, 753 participants; low-certainty evidence), or incidence of other adverse events (moderate-certainty evidence). Interventions did not increase or reduce the amount of sedentary behaviour time (mean difference (MD) +0.13 hours/day, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.68; 7 studies, 300 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were too few data to examine effects on patterns of sedentary behaviour. The effect of interventions on cardiometabolic risk factors allowed very limited meta-analysis.Authors' conclusionsSedentary behaviour research in stroke seems important, yet the evidence is currently incomplete, and we found no evidence for beneficial effects. Current World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend reducing the amount of sedentary time in people with disabilities, in general. The evidence is currently not strong enough to guide practice on how best to reduce sedentariness specifically in people with stroke. More high-quality randomised trials are needed, particularly involving participants with mobility limitations. Trials should include longer-term interventions specifically targeted at reducing time spent sedentary, risk factor outcomes, objective measures of sedentary behaviour (and physical activity), and long-term follow-up.

Project description:ObjectiveStudies examining associations between movement behaviours (i.e. physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep duration) and obesity focus on average values of these movement behaviours, despite important within-country and between-country variability. A better understanding of movement behaviour inequalities is important for developing public health policies and behaviour-change interventions. The objective of this ecologic analysis at the country level was to determine if inequality in movement behaviours is a better correlate of obesity than average movement behaviour volume in children from all inhabited continents of the world.MethodsThis multinational, cross-sectional study included 6,128 children 9-11 years of age. Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), total sedentary time (SED) and sleep period time were monitored over 7 consecutive days using waist-worn accelerometry. Screen time was self-reported. Inequality in movement behaviours was determined using Gini coefficients (ranging from 0 [complete equality] to 1 [complete inequality]).ResultsThe largest inequality in movement behaviours was observed for screen time (Gini of 0.32; medium inequality), followed by MVPA (Gini of 0.21; low inequality), SED (Gini of 0.07; low inequality) and sleep period time (Gini of 0.05; low inequality). Average MVPA (h d-1) was a better correlate of obesity than MVPA inequality (r = -0.77 vs. r = 0.00, p = 0.03). Average SED (h d-1) was also a better correlate of obesity than SED inequality (r = 0.52 vs. r = -0.32, p = 0.05). Differences in associations for screen time and sleep period time were not statistically significant. MVPA in girls was found to be disproportionally lower in countries with more MVPA inequality.ConclusionsFindings from this study show that average MVPA and SED should continue to be used in population health studies of children as they are better correlates of obesity than inequality in these behaviours. Moreover, the findings suggest that MVPA inequality could be greatly reduced through increases in girls' MVPA alone.

Dataset Information

Effects of reducing sedentary behaviour duration by increasing physical activity, on cognitive function, brain function and structure across the lifespan: a systematic review protocol.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Prospero registration number

Publications

Effects of reducing sedentary behaviour duration by increasing physical activity, on cognitive function, brain function and structure across the lifespan: a systematic review protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets