Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Physical activity in adult users of inpatient mental health services: A scoping review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          People with severe mental illness engage in considerably less physical activity than those without. They also experience premature mortality of around 10–25 years. A large proportion of these premature deaths are attributed to modifiable behaviours, including physical activity. The inpatient environment provides an opportunity to support people to become more physically active; however, there is limited evidence on which interventions are most successful and what contextual factors affect their delivery. A scoping review was conducted to help understand the extent and type of evidence in this area and identify research gaps. We included studies of physical activity correlates and interventions in adult inpatient mental health services published in peer-reviewed journals. Reviews, meta-analyses, and papers focusing on eating disorder populations were excluded. We searched the MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ASSIA and Web of Science databases for relevant studies published in English. We extracted data on study design, participant characteristics, intervention and control conditions, key findings, and research recommendations. We used a descriptive analytical approach and results are presented in tables and figures. Of 27,286 unique records screened, 210 reports from 182 studies were included. Sixty-one studies reported on correlates of physical activity, and 139 studies reported on physical activity interventions. Most intervention studies used a single-group, pre-post design (40%) and included fewer than 100 participants (86%). Ninety percent of interventions delivered physical activity directly to participants, and 50% included group-based sessions. The duration, type, frequency and intensity of sessions varied. Mental health was the most commonly reported outcome (64%), whereas physical activity was rarely an outcome (13%). Overall, there is a modest but growing body of research on physical activity in adult users of inpatient mental health services. More high-quality trials are needed to advance the field, and future research should target neglected intervention types, outcomes, populations and settings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Scoping studies: advancing the methodology

            Background Scoping studies are an increasingly popular approach to reviewing health research evidence. In 2005, Arksey and O'Malley published the first methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. While this framework provides an excellent foundation for scoping study methodology, further clarifying and enhancing this framework will help support the consistency with which authors undertake and report scoping studies and may encourage researchers and clinicians to engage in this process. Discussion We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework. Recommendations include: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question (stage one); balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process (stage two); using an iterative team approach to selecting studies (stage three) and extracting data (stage four); incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis, reporting results, and considering the implications of study findings to policy, practice, or research (stage five); and incorporating consultation with stakeholders as a required knowledge translation component of scoping study methodology (stage six). Lastly, we propose additional considerations for scoping study methodology in order to support the advancement, application and relevance of scoping studies in health research. Summary Specific recommendations to clarify and enhance this methodology are outlined for each stage of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Continued debate and development about scoping study methodology will help to maximize the usefulness and rigor of scoping study findings within healthcare research and practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

              Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLOS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                19 August 2024
                2024
                : 19
                : 8
                : e0301857
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Institute for Health and Care Improvement, York St John University, York, United Kingdom
                [2 ] School of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom
                [3 ] Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust, Darlington, United Kingdom
                [4 ] College of Health, Wellbeing and Life Sciences, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, United Kingdom
                King Saud University Medical City, SAUDI ARABIA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9377-1968
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4766-3971
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5764-5422
                Article
                PONE-D-23-36017
                10.1371/journal.pone.0301857
                11332955
                39159166
                b720c125-c3e7-4c8b-a9fc-382f24a12b55
                © 2024 Tew et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 4 November 2023
                : 22 March 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 7, Pages: 21
                Funding
                Funded by: Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Trust
                Award Recipient :
                This study was supported by Research Capability Funding from Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Trust The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Physical Activity
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Patients
                Inpatients
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Physical Activity
                Physical Fitness
                Exercise
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Sports and Exercise Medicine
                Exercise
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Sports Science
                Sports and Exercise Medicine
                Exercise
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Qualitative Studies
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Complementary and Alternative Medicine
                Exercise Therapy
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                Mental Health Therapies
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article