Physical activity (PA) is discussed as a protective factor as well as a risk factor for alcohol consumption. Therefore, this study aimed at exploring a potential relationship between these behaviors. In a population-based cross-sectional study of 15,474 people living in Austria physical activity, alcohol consumption and demographic variables were assessed. Regression analysis including age and gender revealed no significant relationship between PA and alcohol consumption for the total sample. More alcohol consumption was found in men with low PA-levels. Focusing on a part of the population who consumed alcohol the weekend before, men with high PA-levels reported more alcohol consumption in comparison to men with moderate PA-levels. This study does not support a common alcohol-physical activity relationship. Prevention programs to increase PA levels from low to moderate combined with a reduction of alcohol intake in men who regularly drink alcohol should be considered.

The family climate in 36 families, comprising 154 individuals, was investigated. The objective of this study was to compare families where the mother suffered from chronic headache to families with pain-free mothers and to those where the mother suffered from chronic low back pain. The Family Environment Scale (FES) was used to evaluate the family climate in these 3 groups as perceived by the members of the family. The results in sufficiently standardized groups show a significantly reduced intra-family openness (P< 0.0001) in families where the mother suffered from chronic headache. Both pain groups were less active in their leisure time than the pain-free families. Based on the findings of the present study, the impact of the psychosocial environment as a novel normative value for chronic pain syndromes is discussed in relation to the need for further research and treatment modalities.

Increasing evidence suggests positive associations between physical activity, social support, and quality of life in later life. However, the role of physical activity and social support in the influence on quality of life is unclear. In this viewpoint, definitions of central terms and key research findings on factors influencing quality of life in older adults are provided. We highlight the importance of both a physically active lifestyle and high social support in positively influencing quality of life. However, we question the direct effect of physical activity on quality of life and present data of a cross-sectional study to support the assumption that the effect of physical activity on quality of life might be influenced by perceived social support. In this cross-sectional study, self-reported physical activity, social support, and quality of life were assessed in a nonclinical sample of 100 adults aged between 60 and 80 years. Statistical analyses included correlation analyses and covariate-controlled mediation analyses. The results confirmed the research findings on positive correlations between all domains of quality of life and both physical activity and social support. Mediation analyses indicated that the effect of physical activity on all domains of quality of life was at least partially mediated by social support, when controlled for covariates. Based on the findings of published evidence and this cross-sectional study, a socially and physically active lifestyle is recommended for older adults to positively influence quality of life. However, the well-documented effect of physical activity on quality of might be an at least partially mediated effect by perceived social support. Practical and research-related implications of a potential indirect effect are discussed. Further prospective research is warranted to clarify the relationship between the variables.

Background Smoking is the most common substance use disorder among people with mental illness. In contrast to people without mental illness, among whom the proportion of smokers has declined in recent decades, the proportion of smokers among people with mental illness remains high. There is a growing body of literature suggesting the use of exercise interventions in combination with smoking cessation in people without mental illness, but to our knowledge the available studies on this treatment option in people with mental illness have not been systematically reviewed. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the effectiveness of exercise interventions as an adjunctive treatment for smoking cessation in people with mental illness. Methods Electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo, Sport Discus and Base) were searched for randomised controlled trials and prospective single-group studies that investigated exercise interventions in combination with smoking cessation programmes alone or in comparison with a control group in people with mental illness. A meta-analysis using the Mantel–Haenszel fixed-effect model was conducted to estimate the overall effect of treatment on smoking cessation (abstinence rate at the end of the intervention and at 6-month follow-up). Results Six studies, five randomised controlled trials and one study with a prospective single-group design, were included in the systematic review and four randomised controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis found a significantly higher abstinence rate after additional exercise at the end of the intervention [risk ratio (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13–1.94], but not at the 6-month follow-up (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.89–2.04). Conclusions Exercise appears to be an effective adjunctive therapy to temporarily increase abstinence rates in individuals with mental illness at the end of the intervention. However, due to the small number of included studies and some risk of bias in the included studies, the results should be treated with caution. Therefore, future studies with larger samples are needed to provide a more accurate estimate of the effect in people with mental illness. Registration The systematic review and meta-analysis were registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (registration number: CRD42020178630).