4.6 Review

Sedentary behavior and health outcomes among older adults: a systematic review

期刊

BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-333

关键词

Sedentary lifestyle; Sitting time; Television; Risk factors; Aged; Health status; Mortality

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP, Sao Paulo Research Foundation) [2012/07314-8]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In the last decade, sedentary behavior has emerged as a new risk factor for health. The elderly spend most of their awake time in sedentary activities. Despite this high exposure, the impact of this sedentary behavior on the health of this population has not yet been reviewed. We systematically reviewed evidence for associations between sedentary behavior and multiple health outcomes in adults over 60 years of age. Methods: We searched the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILLACS, and Sedentary Research Database for observational studies published up to May 2013. Additionally, we contacted members of the Sedentary Behaviour Research Network to identify articles that were potentially eligible. After inclusion, the methodological quality of the evidence was assessed in each study. Results: We included 24 eligible articles in our systematic review, of which only 2 (8%) provided high-quality evidence. Greater sedentary time was related to an increased risk of all-cause mortality in the older adults. Some studies with a moderate quality of evidence indicated a relationship between sedentary behavior and metabolic syndrome, waist circumference, and overweightness/obesity. The findings for other outcomes such as mental health, renal cancer cells, and falls remain insufficient to draw conclusions. Conclusion: This systematic review supports the relationship between sedentary behavior and mortality in older adults. Additional studies with high methodological quality are still needed to develop informed guidelines for addressing sedentary behavior in older adults.

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