4.6 Article

Interventions promoting physical activity among obese populations: a meta-analysis considering global effect, long-term maintenance, physical activity indicators and dose characteristics

期刊

OBESITY REVIEWS
卷 12, 期 7, 页码 E633-E645

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00874.x

关键词

Interventions; meta-analysis; obesity; physical activity

资金

  1. French Ministry of Research
  2. National Institute of Prevention and Health Education (INPES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As the benefits that regular physical activity (PA) have on obesity are well known, many interventions promote active lifestyle adoption among obese populations. This meta-analysis aims to determine (i) the global effect that interventions promoting PA among obese populations have on their PA behaviour; (ii) variations in the effect of interventions depending on the PA indicator used; (iii) the programme's dose characteristics and (iv) maintenance of the intervention effects after the intervention has ended. A comprehensive search through databases and review articles was completed. Forty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. Calculations of effect size (Cohen's d) and a moderator analysis were conducted. The meta-analysis showed that interventions globally have an impact on the PA behaviour of obese populations (d = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.31, 0.57). The moderator analysis revealed that interventions of less than 6 months reported significantly larger effects than longer interventions. Moreover, the interventions had a stronger impact on the number of steps and the PA indexes (i. e. composite scores reflecting PA practice) than on other PA indicators. Finally, the analysis revealed that interventions succeed in maintaining PA behaviour after the intervention is over. However, relatively few studies addressed this issue (n = 9). Despite global positive effects, further research is needed to determine the optimal dose for interventions and to evaluate the maintenance of intervention effects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据