Sweden has a long tradition of recording cause of death data. The Swedish cause of death register is a high quality virtually complete register of all deaths in Sweden since 1952. Although originally created for official statistics, it is a highly important data source for medical research since it can be linked to many other national registers, which contain data on social and health factors in the Swedish population. For the appropriate use of this register, it is fundamental to understand its origins and composition. In this paper we describe the origins and composition of the Swedish cause of death register, set out the key strengths and weaknesses of the register, and present the main causes of death across age groups and over time in Sweden. This paper provides a guide and reference to individuals and organisations interested in data from the Swedish cause of death register.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10654-017-0316-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundTargeting specific time periods of the day or week may enhance physical activity (PA) interventions in youth. The most prudent time segments to target are currently unclear.ObjectivesTo systematically review the literature describing differences in young people’s objectively measured PA on weekdays vs. weekends, in school vs. out of school, weekends vs. out of school and lesson time vs. break time.MethodsElectronic databases were searched for English-language, cross-sectional studies of school-aged children (4–18 years) reporting time-segment-specific accelerometer-measured PA from 01/1990 to 01/2013. We meta-analysed standardised mean differences (SMD) between time segments for mean accelerometer counts per minute (TPA) and minutes in moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA). SMD is reported in units of standard deviation; 0.2, 0.5 and 0.8 represent small, moderate and large effects. Heterogeneity was explored using meta-regression (potential effect modifiers: age, sex and study setting).ResultsOf the 54 included studies, 37 were eligible for meta-analyses. Children were more active on weekdays than weekends [pooled SMD (95 % CI) TPA 0.14 (0.08; 0.20), MVPA 0.42 (0.35; 0.49)]. On school days, TPA was lower in school than out of school; however, marginally more MVPA was accumulated in school [TPA −0.24 (−0.40; −0.08), MVPA 0.17 (−0.03; 0.38)]. TPA was slightly lower on weekends than out of school on school days, but a greater absolute volume of MVPA was performed on weekends [TPA −0.10 (−0.19; −0.01), MVPA 1.02 (0.82; 1.23)]. Heterogeneity between studies was high (I2 73.3–96.3 %), with 20.3–53.1 % of variance between studies attributable to potential moderating factors.ConclusionsSchool-aged children are more active on weekdays than weekend days. The outcome measure influences the conclusions for other comparisons. Findings support the tailoring of intervention strategies to specific time periods.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40279-014-0215-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

CRD42015026850.

Exercise during cancer treatment improves cancer‐related fatigue (CRF), but the importance of exercise intensity for CRF is unclear. We compared the effects of high‐ vs low‐to‐moderate‐intensity exercise with or without additional behavior change support (BCS) on CRF in patients undergoing (neo‐)adjuvant cancer treatment. This was a multicenter, 2x2 factorial design randomized controlled trial (Clinical Trials NCT02473003) in Sweden. Participants recently diagnosed with breast (n = 457), prostate (n = 97) or colorectal (n = 23) cancer undergoing (neo‐)adjuvant treatment were randomized to high intensity (n = 144), low‐to‐moderate intensity (n = 144), high intensity with BCS (n = 144) or low‐to‐moderate intensity with BCS (n = 145). The 6‐month exercise intervention included supervised resistance training and home‐based endurance training. CRF was assessed by Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI, five subscales score range 4‐20), and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy‐Fatigue scale (FACIT‐F, score range 0‐52). Multiple linear regression for main factorial effects was performed according to intention‐to‐treat, with post‐intervention CRF as primary endpoint. Overall, 577 participants (mean age 58.7 years) were randomized. Participants randomized to high‐ vs low‐to‐moderate‐intensity exercise had lower physical fatigue (MFI Physical Fatigue subscale; mean difference −1.05 [95% CI: −1.85, −0.25]), but the difference was not clinically important (ie <2). We found no differences in other CRF dimensions and no effect of additional BCS. There were few minor adverse events. For CRF, patients undergoing (neo‐)adjuvant treatment for breast, prostate or colorectal cancer can safely exercise at high‐ or low‐to‐moderate intensity, according to their own preferences. Additional BCS does not provide extra benefit for CRF in supervised, well‐controlled exercise interventions.