4.6 Review

Sedentary behaviors and anxiety among children, adolescents and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 19, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-6715-3

Keywords

Anxiety; Sedentary behaviors; Children; Adolescents; Adults; Systematic review; Meta-analysis

Funding

  1. National Science Centre, Poland [2017/27/B/HS6/00092]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundAlthough the number of studies examining the relationships between sedentary behaviors (SB) and anxiety is growing, an overarching evidence, taking into account children, adolescents, and adults as well as different types of SB and different categories of anxiety outcomes, is still missing. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at obtaining a comprehensive overview of existing evidence.MethodsA search in the following databases: PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Academic Search Complete, ERIC, HealthSource: Nursing/Academic Edition and MEDLINE, resulted in k=31 original studies included in the systematic review (total N=99,192) and k=17 (total N=27,443) included in the meta-analysis. Main inclusion criteria referred to testing the SB--anxiety relationship, the quality score (above the threshold of 65%), and the language of publications (English). The study was following the PRISMA statement and was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42017068517).ResultsBoth the systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that overall average effects were small: higher levels of symptoms of anxiety were associated with higher levels of SB (weighted r=.093, 95% CI [.055, .130], p<.001). Moderator analyses indicatedthat trends for stronger effects were observed among adults, compared to children/adolescents (p=.085).ConclusionsFurther longitudinal studies are necessary to elucidate the predictive direction of the anxietySB relationship and to clarify whether the effects depend on the type of anxiety indicators.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available