Systematic review of the relationships between physical activity and health indicators in the early years (0-4 years)

Abstract

BackgroundGiven the rapid development during the early years (0-4 years), an understanding of the health implications of physical activity is needed. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the relationships between objectively and subjectively measured physical activity and health indicators in the early years.MethodsElectronic databases were originally searched in April, 2016. Included studies needed to be peer-reviewed, written in English or French, and meet a priori study criteria. The population was apparently healthy children aged 1 month to 59.99 months/4.99 years. The intervention/exposure was objectively and subjectively measured physical activity. The comparator was various volumes, durations, frequencies, patterns, types, and intensities of physical activity. The outcomes were health indicators ranked as critical (adiposity, motor development, psychosocial health, cognitive development, fitness) and important (bone and skeletal health, cardiometabolic health, and risks/harm). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to assess the quality of evidence for each health indicator by each study design.ResultsNinety-six studies representing 71,291 unique participants from 36 countries were included. Physical activity interventions were consistently (>60% of studies) associated with improved motor and cognitive development, and psychosocial and cardiometabolic health. Across observational studies, physical activity was consistently associated with favourable motor development, fitness, and bone and skeletal health. For intensity, light- and moderate-intensity physical activity were not consistently associated with any health indicators, whereas moderate- to vigorous-intensity, vigorous-intensity, and total physical activity were consistently favourably associated with multiple health indicators. Across study designs, consistent favourable associations with health indicators were observed for a variety of types of physical activity, including active play, aerobic, dance, prone position (infants; ≤1 year), and structured/organized. Apart from ≥30 min/day of the prone position for infants, the most favourable frequency and duration of physical activity was unclear. However, more physical activity appeared better for health. Evidence ranged from “very low” to “high” quality.ConclusionsSpecific types of physical activity, total physical activity, and physical activity of at least moderate- to vigorous-intensity were consistently favourably associated with multiple health indicators. The majority of evidence was in preschool-aged children (3-4 years). Findings will inform evidence-based guidelines.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-017-4860-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prenatal exercise (including but not limited to pelvic floor muscle training) and urinary incontinence during and following pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The risk of bias in RCTs and non-randomised intervention studies was assessed following the Cochrane Handbook25 and risk of bias in observational studies was assessed using the characteristics recommended by Guyatt et al ,26 consistent with systematic reviews conducted to support previous health behaviour guidelines 27. All studies were assessed for potential sources of selection bias, reporting bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias and ‘other’ sources of bias.…”

Prenatal exercise for the prevention of gestational diabetes mellitus and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Specifically, the risk of bias in RCTs and intervention studies was assessed following the Cochrane Handbook19 and the risk of bias in observational studies was assessed using the characteristics recommended by Guyatt et al ,20 which has been used by other Physical Activity Guidelines 21. All studies (RCTs, intervention studies and observational studies) were screened for potential sources of bias including selection bias (RCT/intervention: inadequate randomisation procedure; observational: inappropriate sampling), reporting bias (selective/incomplete outcome reporting), performance bias (RCT/intervention: compliance to the intervention; observational: flawed measurement of exposure), detection bias (flawed measurement of outcome), attrition bias (incomplete follow-up, high loss to follow-up) and ‘other’ sources of bias.…”

Impact of prenatal exercise on maternal harms, labour and delivery outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Specifically, the risk of bias in RCTs and intervention studies were assessed following the Cochrane Handbook,26 and the risk of bias in observational studies were assessed using the characteristics recommended by Guyatt et al ,20 consistent with systematic reviews conducted to support previous health behaviour guidelines 27. All studies (RCTs, intervention studies and observational studies) were assessed for potential sources of bias including selection bias (RCT/intervention: inadequate randomisation procedure; observational: inappropriate sampling), reporting bias (selective/incomplete outcome reporting), performance bias (RCT/intervention: compliance to the intervention; observational: flawed measurement of exposure), detection bias (flawed measurement of outcome), attrition bias (incomplete follow-up and high loss to follow-up) and ‘other’ sources of bias.…”