Background Sedentary lifestyle is a major risk factor for noncommunicable diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, cancer and diabetes. It has been estimated that approximately 3.2 million deaths each year are attributable to insufficient levels of physical activity. We evaluated the available evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) on the effectiveness of exercise/physical activity for various health outcomes. Methods Overview and meta-analysis. The Cochrane Library was searched from 01.01.2000 to issue 1, 2019. No language restrictions were imposed. Only CSRs of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Both healthy individuals, those at risk of a disease, and medically compromised patients of any age and gender were eligible. We evaluated any type of exercise or physical activity interventions; against any types of controls; and measuring any type of health-related outcome measures. The AMSTAR-2 tool for assessing the methodological quality of the included studies was utilised. Results Hundred and fifty CSRs met the inclusion criteria. There were 54 different conditions. Majority of CSRs were of high methodological quality. Hundred and thirty CSRs employed meta-analytic techniques and 20 did not. Limitations for studies were the most common reasons for downgrading the quality of the evidence. Based on 10 CSRs and 187 RCTs with 27,671 participants, there was a 13% reduction in mortality rates risk ratio (RR) 0.87 [95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.78 to 0.96]; I2 = 26.6%, [prediction interval (PI) 0.70, 1.07], median effect size (MES) = 0.93 [interquartile range (IQR) 0.81, 1.00]. Data from 15 CSRs and 408 RCTs with 32,984 participants showed a small improvement in quality of life (QOL) standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.18 [95% CI 0.08, 0.28]; I2 = 74.3%; PI -0.18, 0.53], MES = 0.20 [IQR 0.07, 0.39]. Subgroup analyses by the type of condition showed that the magnitude of effect size was the largest among patients with mental health conditions. Conclusion There is a plethora of CSRs evaluating the effectiveness of physical activity/exercise. The evidence suggests that physical activity/exercise reduces mortality rates and improves QOL with minimal or no safety concerns. Trial registration Registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019120295) on 10th January 2019.

Background There are several healthcare professionals involved in health information provision regarding bariatric surgery, such as bariatric surgeons, nutritionists, and medical doctors in outpatient settings. Trustworthy health information supports patients in understanding their diagnosis, treatment decisions, and possible prognosis. Therefore, it is necessary to provide health information on bariatric surgery. This study has two distinct objectives. The first is to outline the delivery of healthcare regarding bariatric surgery in Germany. The second is to describe the information provision within healthcare delivery. Methods We conducted 15 semi-structured telephone interviews with bariatric surgeons between April 2018 and February 2019. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The interview guide consisted of four sections (information about the clinic/surgeon and surgical procedures, preoperative procedure, postoperative procedure, information needs). The transcribed interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis supported by MAXQDA software. Results The pre- and postoperative processes differed substantially between clinics. Additionally, every bariatric clinic had its own information provision concept. There were several cost-related issues the surgeons claimed to be relevant for patients, such as nutritional blood tests or postoperative psychotherapy. These issues were often caused by unclearness of responsibility within the medical disciplines involved. Conclusion Healthcare delivery in bariatric surgery in Germany is heterogeneous in terms of pre- and postoperative care. Therefore, preoperative information provision between the clinics differs. The impact of this heterogeneous healthcare delivery and information provision on patients’ information needs regarding bariatric surgery should be further investigated among patients and other healthcare professionals involved.

Background The global prevalence of diabetes is nearly 9%, with an upward trend in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and gestational diabetes (GDM). Although evidence shows that vulnerable groups are affected disproportionally, these groups are difficult to reach in terms of preventive measures. Currently, there is no gold standard regarding communication strategies and/or public awareness campaigns. Methods We conducted a scoping review in September 2019. Two reviewers independently screened the results of the electronic literature search in several databases, including Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. Extracted data were charted, categorized, and summarized. Results All of the included articles (n=24) targeted T2DM; none targeted GDM. We identified the following five different vulnerable groups within the identified studies: migrants (n=9), ethnic groups such as African Americans (n=8), people with low socioeconomic status (n=3), older people (n=1), and people in need of care (n=1). Three categories of communication strategies were identified as follows: adapted diabetes prevention programs (n=21), community health workers (n=5), and technical approaches (n=9). Conclusion We found different approaches for preventive interventions for T2DM. Some of these approaches were already adapted to known barriers. Communication strategies should be adapted to barriers and facilitating factors to increase participation and motivation.

BackgroundThere is a significant worldwide increase in type 2 diabetes mellitus and gestational diabetes (T2DM/GDM) linked to a range of associated comorbidities and rising healthcare costs. It has been shown that an increase in physical activity, healthy nutrition, and weight loss may prevent or delay T2DM/GDM manifestation. Despite this, it remains a key challenge to reach various populations, in particular so-called vulnerable groups, mostly with a migration background and/or low socio-economic status.Methods/designWe will conduct a scoping review to identify barriers and facilitating factors in the prevention of T2DM/GDM in vulnerable groups. An electronic literature search will be performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, Social Science Citation Index, and CINAHL. Two reviewers will independently select studies for inclusion. Extracted data will be charted, categorized, and summarized.DiscussionThe results will be used to inform the National education and communication strategy on diabetes mellitus in Germany. In particular, the results will be discussed in focus groups of experts to develop recommendations for developing preventive measures targeting vulnerable groups.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO does not register scoping reviews.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0919-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background The global prevalence of diabetes mellitus is nearly 9%, with an upward trend in type 2 and gestational diabetes mellitus (T2DM/GDM). Evidence shows that vulnerable groups are affected disproportionally. Therefore, there is an increasing need to implement policies to prevent risk factors for T2DM/GDM and to promote a healthy lifestyle. However, up to now, no gold standard in terms of communication strategies and/or public awareness campaigns is known. Methods/design We will conduct a systematic scoping review to evaluate communication strategies in the prevention of T2DM/GDM in vulnerable groups. Two reviewers will independently screen the results of the electronic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, Social Science Citation Index, and CINAHL. Extracted data will be charted, categorized, and summarized. Discussion The results will be used to inform the National education and communication strategy on diabetes mellitus in Germany. In particular, the results will be discussed in focus groups of experts to develop recommendations for communication strategies. Systematic review registration PROSPERO does not register scoping reviews.