Effect of including fitness testing in preventive health checks on cardiorespiratory fitness and motivation: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Systematic review of process evaluations of interventions in trials investigating sedentary behaviour in adults

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review and synthesise findings from process evaluations of interventions in trials which measured sedentary behaviour as an outcome in adults to explore: (1) how intervention content, implementation, mechanisms of impact and context influence outcomes and (2) how these interventions are experienced from different perspectives (participants, carers, staff).

DESIGN

Systematic review and narrative synthesis underpinned by the Medical Research Council process evaluation framework.

DATA SOURCES

Databases searches were conducted in March 2019 then updated in May 2020 and October 2021 in: CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, AMED; EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included: Process evaluations of trials including interventions where sedentary behaviour was measured as an outcome in adults aged 16 or over from clinical or non-clinical populations. We excluded studies if interventions were delivered in educational or workplace settings, or if they were laboratory studies focused on immediate effects of breaking sitting.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted and coded data into a framework and assessed the quality of studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We synthesised findings using a narrative approach.

RESULTS

17 process evaluations were included. Five interventions focused on reducing sedentary behaviour or sitting time, 12 aimed to increase physical activity or promote healthier lifestyles. Process evaluations indicated changes in sedentary behaviour outcomes were shaped by numerous factors including: barriers (eg, staffing difficulties and scheduling problems) and facilitators (eg, allowing for flexibility) to intervention delivery; contextual factors (eg, usual lifestyle and religious events) and individual factors (eg, pain, tiredness, illness, age and individual preferences).

DISCUSSION

Intervention requires careful consideration of different factors that could influence changes in sedentary behaviour outcomes to ensure that interventions can be tailored to suit different individuals and groups.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018087403.

General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease

BACKGROUND

General health checks are common elements of health care in some countries. They aim to detect disease and risk factors for disease with the purpose of reducing morbidity and mortality. Most of the commonly used individual screening tests offered in general health checks have been incompletely studied. Also, screening leads to increased use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, which can be harmful as well as beneficial. It is therefore important to assess whether general health checks do more good than harm. This is the first update of the review published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the benefits and harms of general health checks.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers on 31 January 2018. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed papers for eligibility and read reference lists. One review author used citation tracking (Web of Knowledge) and asked trial authors about additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials comparing health checks with no health checks in adults unselected for disease or risk factors. We did not include geriatric trials. We defined health checks as screening for more than one disease or risk factor in more than one organ system.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. We contacted trial authors for additional outcomes or trial details when necessary. When possible, we analysed the results with a random-effects model meta-analysis; otherwise, we did a narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 trials, 15 of which reported outcome data (251,891 participants). Risk of bias was generally low for our primary outcomes. Health checks have little or no effect on total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.03; 11 trials; 233,298 participants and 21,535 deaths; high-certainty evidence, I² = 0%), or cancer mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.12; 8 trials; 139,290 participants and 3663 deaths; high-certainty evidence, I² = 33%), and probably have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16; 9 trials; 170,227 participants and 6237 deaths; moderate-certainty evidence; I² = 65%). Health checks have little or no effect on fatal and non-fatal ischaemic heart disease (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.03; 4 trials; 164,881 persons, 10,325 events; high-certainty evidence; I² = 11%), and probably have little or no effect on fatal and non-fatal stroke (RR 1.05 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17; 3 trials; 107,421 persons, 4543 events; moderate-certainty evidence, I² = 53%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

General health checks are unlikely to be beneficial.

The effect of cardiorespiratory fitness assessment in preventive health checks: a randomised controlled trial

Background

Poor cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) increases morbidity and mortality risks. Routine CRF assessment in clinical practice has thus been advocated, but little is known about the effect. In this study, we investigated the effect of CRF assessment on CRF in a preventive health check programme.

Methods

We used a randomised design, in which we invited 4153 middle-aged adults and included 2201 participants who received a preventive health check with CRF assessment (intervention) or without CRF assessment (control). After 1 year, participants were examined. The primary outcomes were adjusted absolute (l/min), relative (ml/kg/min), and poor (%) CRF assessed by the Astrand-Ryhming test. We adjusted for baseline physical activity and intra-cluster correlation within general practices.

Results

A total of 901 attended the 1-year follow-up. In the intervention group, absolute CRF, relative CRF, and poor CRF were 2.7 l/min (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.6; 2.8), 34.5 ml/kg/min (95% CI: 33.5; 35.4), and 31.0% (95% CI: 26.8; 35.2). In the control group, the corresponding figures were 2.8 l/min (95% CI: 2.7; 2.9), 35.2 ml/kg/min (95% CI: 34.2; 36.1), and 25.9% (95% CI: 21.8; 30.0). Adjusted absolute CRF was lower in the intervention group (-0.1 l/min [95% CI: -0.2; -0.01]). Adjusted relative CRF (-0.7 ml/kg/min [95% CI: -2.0; 0.6]) and poor CRF (5.0% [95% CI: -0.002; 10.1]) did not differ between groups. No differences were found when adjusting for potential confounding factors.

Conclusion

Preventive health checks with CRF assessment did not provide higher CRF levels at 1-year follow-up than preventive health checks without CRF assessment.