Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAttwood, Sophieen
dc.contributor.authorVan Sluijs, Estheren
dc.contributor.authorSutton, Stephenen
dc.date.accessioned2016-05-18T12:25:23Z
dc.date.available2016-05-18T12:25:23Z
dc.date.issued2016-05-20en
dc.identifier.citationAttwood et al. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity (2016)en
dc.identifier.issn1479-5868
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/256054
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Little is known about equity effects in primary care based physical activity interventions. This review explored whether differences in intervention effects are evident across indicators of social disadvantage, specified under the acronym PROGRESS-Plus (place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender, religion, education, social capital, socioeconomic status, plus age, disability and sexual orientation). METHODS: Six bibliographic databases were systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of physical activity interventions conducted in primary care. Harvest plots were used to synthesize findings from RCTs reporting subgroup or interaction analyses examining differences in intervention effects across levels of at least one PROGRESS-Plus factor. RESULTS: The search yielded 9052 articles, from which 173 eligible RCTs were identified. Despite PROGRESS-Plus factors being commonly measured (N = 171 RCTs), differential effect analyses were infrequently reported (N = 24 RCTs). Where reported, results of equity analyses suggest no differences in effect across levels or categories of place of residence (N = 1RCT), race (N = 4 RCTs), education (N = 3 RCTs), socioeconomic status (N = 3 RCTs), age (N = 16 RCTs) or disability (N = 2 RCTs). Mixed findings were observed for gender (N = 22 RCTs), with some interventions showing greater effect in men than women and others vice versa. Three RCTs examined indicators of social capital, with larger post-intervention differences in physical activity levels between trial arms found in those with higher baseline social support for exercise in one trial only. No RCTs examined differential effects by participant occupation, religion or sexual orientation. CONCLUSION: The majority of RCTs of physical activity interventions in primary care record sufficient information on PROGRESS-Plus factors to allow differential effects to be studied. However, very few actually report details of relevant analyses to determine which population subgroups may stand to benefit or be further disadvantaged by intervention efforts.
dc.description.sponsorshipThe work was undertaken by the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence (RES-590-28-0002). Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. The work was additionally supported by the Medical Research Council [Unit Programme number: MC_UU_12015/7].
dc.languageengen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherBioMed Central
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectEquityen
dc.subjectInterventionen
dc.subjectNon-communicable diseasesen
dc.subjectPhysical activityen
dc.subjectSocio-economic inequalitiesen
dc.subjectTrialsen
dc.subjectExerciseen
dc.subjectFemaleen
dc.subjectHealth Equityen
dc.subjectHealth Promotionen
dc.subjectHumansen
dc.subjectMaleen
dc.subjectPrimary Health Careen
dc.subjectSocioeconomic Factorsen
dc.titleExploring equity in primary-care-based physical activity interventions using PROGRESS-Plus: a systematic review and evidence synthesis.en
dc.typeArticle
prism.number60en
prism.publicationDate2016en
prism.publicationNameInternational Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activityen
prism.volume13en
dc.rioxxterms.funderBHF
dc.rioxxterms.funderCRUK
dc.rioxxterms.funderESRC
dc.rioxxterms.funderMRC
dc.rioxxterms.funderNIHR
dc.rioxxterms.funderWellcome Trust
dc.rioxxterms.projectidRES-590-28-0002
dc.rioxxterms.projectidMC_UU_12015/7
dcterms.dateAccepted2016-05-10en
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1186/s12966-016-0384-8en
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2016-05-20en
dc.contributor.orcidVan Sluijs, Esther [0000-0001-9141-9082]
dc.contributor.orcidSutton, Stephen [0000-0003-1610-0404]
dc.identifier.eissn1479-5868
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen
pubs.funder-project-idMRC (MC_UU_12015/7)
pubs.funder-project-idWellcome Trust (087636/Z/08/Z)
pubs.funder-project-idESRC (ES/G007462/1)
pubs.funder-project-idMRC (MR/K023187/1)
pubs.funder-project-idNIHR�Central Commissioning Facility (CCF) (RP-PG-0608-10079)
cam.issuedOnline2016-05-20en


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 4.0 International
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as Attribution 4.0 International