Background Although the benefits of physical activity (PA) are well known, physical inactivity is highly prevalent among people with obesity. The objective of this systematic review was to i) appraise knowledge on PA motives, barriers, and preferences in individuals with obesity, and ii) quantify the most frequently reported PA motives, barriers and preferences in this population. Methods Six databases (Pubmed, CINAHL, Psyarticle, SportDiscus, Web of science and Proquest) were searched by independent reviewers to identify relevant quantitative or qualitative articles reporting PA motives, barriers or preferences in adults with body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 (last searched in June 2020). Risk of bias for each study was assessed by two independent reviewers with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Results From 5,899 papers identified, a total of 27 studies, 14 quantitative, 10 qualitative and 3 mixed studies were included. About 30% of studies have a MMAT score below 50% (k = 8). The three most reported PA motives in people with obesity were weight management, energy/physical fitness, and social support. The three most common PA barriers were lack of self-discipline/motivation, pain or physical discomfort, and lack of time. Based on the only 4 studies available, walking seems to be the preferred mode of PA in people with obesity. Conclusions Weight management, lack of motivation and pain are key PA motives and barriers in people with obesity, and should be addressed in future interventions to facilitate PA initiation and maintenance. Further research is needed to investigate the PA preferences of people with obesity.

No abstract

Background. Although the benefits of physical activity (PA) are well known, physical inactivity is high in people with obesity. The objective of this systematic review was to i) appraise knowledge on PA motives, barriers, and preferences in individuals with obesity, and ii) quantify the most frequently reported PA motives, barriers and preferences in this population.Methods. Six databases (Pubmed, CINAHL, Psyarticle, SportDiscus, Web of science and Proquest) were searched until June 2020 by independent reviewers to identify relevant quantitative or qualitative articles reporting PA motives, barriers or preferences in adults with body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2. Risk of bias for each study was assessed by two independent reviewers with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Results. From 5,898 papers identified, 13 quantitative, 10 qualitative and 3 mixed studies were included (k=26). About 31% of studies have a MMAT score below 50 % (k=8). The three most reported PA motives in people with obesity were weight management, followed by energy/physical fitness and social support. The three most common PA barriers were lack of self-discipline/motivation, pain or physical discomfort, and lack of time. Based on the only 4 studies available, walking seems to be the preferred mode of PA in people with obesity.Conclusions. Weight management, lack of motivation and pain are keys PA motives and barriers in people with obesity, and should be addressed in future interventions to facilitate PA initiation and maintenance. Further research is needed to investigate the PA preferences of people with obesity.

Background. Critical Care Response Teams (CCRTs) represent an important interface between end-of-life care (EOLC) and critical care medicine (CCM). The aim of this study was to explore the roles and interactions of CCRTs in the provision of EOLC from the perspective of CCRT members. Methods. Twelve registered nurses (RNs) and four respiratory therapists (RTs) took part in focus groups, and one-on-one interviews were conducted with six critical care physicians. Thematic coding using a modified constructivist grounded theory approach was used to identify emerging themes through an iterative process involving a four-member coding team. Results. Three main perspectives were identified that spoke to CCRT interactions and perceptions of EOLC encounters. CCRT members felt that they provide a unique skill set of multidisciplinary expertise in treating critically ill patients and evaluating the utility of intensive care treatments. However, despite feeling that they possessed the skills and resources to deliver quality EOLC, CCRT members were ambivalent with respect to whether EOLC was a part of their mandate. Challenges were also identified that impacted the ability of CCRTs to deliver quality EOLC. Conclusions. This research aids in understanding for the first time CCRT roles in EOLC from the perspectives of individual CCRT members themselves. While CCRTs provide unique multidisciplinary expertise to evaluate the utility of intensive care treatments, opportunities exist to support CCRTs in EOLC, such as dedicated EOLC training, protocols for advance care planning, documentation, and transitions to palliative care.