Perceptions of physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines among end-users and stakeholders: a systematic review

Abstract

Background Many of the world’s population, across all age groups and abilities, are not meeting or even aware of internationally recommended physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) guidelines. In order to enhance awareness and uptake, guidelines should be perceived positively by targeted users. The purpose of this study was to review the literature on end-user and stakeholder perceptions of PA and SB guidelines. Methods The electronic databases APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and SPORTDiscus, using EBSCOhost Research Platform, and Web of Science were searched from inception to June, 2021 with keyword synonyms for “perceptions”, “PA guidelines”, and “SB guidelines”. Studies of any design that collected stakeholder and/or end-user responses to a PA and/or SB guideline were included and assessed for risk of bias. The PA and/or SB guideline could be any type of official form (e.g., national documents, organizational guidelines, expert consensus statements, etc.) from any country, that targets individuals at the regional, provincial/statewide, national, or international level, and includes all types of guidelines (e.g., strength, aerobic, clinical, nonclinical, screen-time, sitting, etc.). Data were extracted and analyzed using thematic synthesis. Results After screening 1399 abstracts and applying citation screening, 304 full-texts were retrieved. A total of 31 articles met the inclusion criteria. End-users and stakeholders for PA guidelines across all age groups expressed the need for simplified language with more definitions, relatable examples and imagery, and quantification of PA behaviours. There was concern for the early years and child PA guidelines leading to guilt amongst parents and the SB guidelines, particularly the recommendations to limit screen-time, being unrealistic. General age group PA guidelines were not perceived as usable to populations with differing abilities, clinical conditions, and socioeconomic status. Guidelines that targeted clinical populations, such as persons with multiple sclerosis and persons with spinal cord injury, were well received. Conclusions There is a clear need to balance the evidence base with the pragmatic needs of translation and uptake so that the guidelines are not ignored or act as a barrier to actual engagement.

Perspectives of the World Health Organization's physical activity guidelines among patients with musculoskeletal conditions: A mixed‐methods survey

“…Consistent with our findings, previous research reported that guideline target populations felt that PA guidelines were too simplistic and do not account for varying abilities and health conditions (Hollman et al., 2022). Specific PA guidelines created for people with spinal cord injury and wheelchair users with multiple sclerosis have been well received and are considered appropriate and acceptable (Hollman et al., 2022; Silveira et al., 2022).…”

Screen time and depression risk: A meta-analysis of cohort studies

“…With the increased screen time, both sedentary behavior and exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) increase ( 10 ). Poitras et al ( 11 ) and Carson et al ( 12 ) indicated that screen time is associated with unfavorable health outcomes, and Canada, Australia, and USA have developed the “Sedentary Behavior Guidelines” to provide guidance and motivate people to reduce their screen time ( 13 – 15 ). Several studies have indicated that increased screen time duration could be associated with lagged development ( 16 ), psychosocial symptoms ( 10 , 17 ), obesity ( 18 , 19 ), sleep disorders ( 20 , 21 ), and cardiovascular disease ( 22 , 23 ).…”

Adherence to 24‐h movement behaviour guidelines in families with multiple children

“…This may reflect parent confidence in their ability to support and reinforce guideline adherence, particularly for PA (Rhodes et al, 2019 ). Some parents may have a low level of awareness of health behaviour guidelines (Sawyer et al, 2014 ), or difficulties understanding guideline messages, for example, due to health literacy (Hollman et al, 2022 ). Parents may also find guidelines unrealistic, too difficult or challenging to reinforce, despite guilt (Hollman et al, 2022 ) and good intentions (Rhodes et al, 2019 ).…”

“…Some parents may have a low level of awareness of health behaviour guidelines (Sawyer et al, 2014 ), or difficulties understanding guideline messages, for example, due to health literacy (Hollman et al, 2022 ). Parents may also find guidelines unrealistic, too difficult or challenging to reinforce, despite guilt (Hollman et al, 2022 ) and good intentions (Rhodes et al, 2019 ). Parents may find it easier to implement a one‐size‐fits‐all rule for all their children, resulting in some children meeting guidelines while others do not.…”

“…Recommendations for helping parents manage guideline adherence include acknowledgement that 24-h movement behaviours need to be considered together, ensuring that guidelines use sim- relatable examples of how to integrate adherent behaviours into daily life (Friel et al, 2020;Hollman et al, 2022;Jarvis et al, 2021;Latimer-Cheung et al, 2016;Olds et al, 2018;Roman-Viñas et al, 2016;Tapia-Serrano et al, 2022). Parenting to produce estimates that correlate with accelerometer data in epidemiological studies involving adolescents (Prochaska et al, 2001), the measure may not be comparable with research using more narrow age bands or different time scales for determining adherence (Gomes et al, 2017).…”