METHODS: This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Only national, or international physical activity and/or sedentary behaviour guidelines were included in the review. Included guidelines targeted children and adolescents aged between 5 and 18 years. A grey literature search was undertaken incorporating electronic databases, custom Google search engines, targeted websites and international expert consultation. Guideline quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Instrument (AGREE II).
RESULTS: The search resulted in 50 national or international guidelines being identified. Twenty-five countries had a national guideline and there were three international guidelines (European Union, Nordic countries (used by Iceland, Norway and Sweden), World Health Organization (WHO)). Nineteen countries and the European Union adopted the WHO guidelines. Guidelines varied in relation to date of release (2008 to 2019), targeted age group, and guideline wording regarding: type, amount, duration, intensity, frequency and total amount of physical activity. Twenty-two countries included sedentary behaviour within the guidelines and three included sleep. Total scores for all domains of the AGREE II assessment for each guideline indicated considerable variability in guideline quality ranging from 25.8 to 95.3%, with similar variability in the six individual domains. Rigorous guideline development is essential to ensure appropriate guidance for population level initiatives.
CONCLUSIONS: This review revealed considerable variability between national/international physical activity guideline quality, development and recommendations, highlighting the need for rigorous and transparent guideline development methodologies to ensure appropriate guidance for population-based approaches. Where countries do not have the resources to ensure this level of quality, the adoption or adolopment (framework to review and update guidelines) of the WHO guidelines or guidelines of similar quality is recommended.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Review registration: PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017072558.
METHODS: A systematic review using searches in PubMed, SCOPUS and ISI Web of Knowledge databases was conducted in August 2017 and updated between January and May 2020. The review was registered at the PROSPERO database number CRD42017070153. PA publications per 100,000 inhabitants per country was the main variable of interest. Descriptive and time-trend analyses were conducted in STATA version 16.0.
RESULTS: The search retrieved 555,468 articles of which 75,756 were duplicates, leaving 479,712 eligible articles. After reviewing inclusion and exclusion criteria, 23,860 were eligible for data extraction. Eighty-one percent of countries (n = 176) had at least one PA publication. The overall worldwide publication rate in the PA field was 0.46 articles per 100,000 inhabitants. Europe had the highest rate (1.44 articles per 100,000 inhabitants) and South East Asia had the lowest (0.04 articles per 100,000 inhabitants). A more than a 50-fold difference in publications per 100,000 inhabitants was identified between high and low-income countries. The least productive and poorest regions have rates resembling previous decades of the most productive and the richest.
CONCLUSION: This study showed an increasing number of publications over the last 60 years with a growing number of disciplines and research methods over time. However, striking inequities were revealed and the knowledge gap across geographic regions and by country income groups was substantial over time. The need for regular global surveillance of PA research, particularly in countries with the largest data gaps is clear. A focus on the public health impact and global equity of research will be an important contribution to making the world more active.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional validation study.
METHODS: We used data involving 3- and 4-year-olds from 13 middle- and high-income countries who participated in the SUNRISE study. We used Spearman's rank-order correlation, Bland-Altman plots, and Kappa statistics to validate parent-reported child habitual total physical activity against activPAL™-measured total physical activity over 3 days. Additionally, we used Receiver Operating Characteristic Area Under the Curve analysis to validate existing step-count thresholds (Gabel, Vale, and De Craemer) using step-counts derived from activPAL™.
RESULTS: Of the 352 pre-schoolers, 49.1 % were girls. There was a very weak but significant positive correlation and slight agreement between parent-reported total physical activity and accelerometer-measured total physical activity (r: 0.140; p = 0.009; Kappa: 0.030). Parents overestimated their child's total physical activity compared to accelerometry (mean bias: 69 min/day; standard deviation: 126; 95 % limits of agreement: -179, 316). Of the three step-count thresholds tested, the De Craemer threshold of 11,500 steps/day provided excellent classification of meeting the total physical activity guideline as measured by accelerometry (area under the ROC curve: 0.945; 95 % confidence interval: 0.928, 0.961; sensitivity: 100.0 %; specificity: 88.9 %).
CONCLUSIONS: Parent reports may have limited validity for assessing pre-schoolers' level of total physical activity. Step-counting is a promising alternative - low-cost global surveillance initiatives could potentially use pedometers for assessing compliance with the physical activity guideline in early childhood.