A systematic review of interventions to promote physical activity in six Gulf countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity (PA) levels are low in Gulf Cooperation Council countries (GCC; Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates). We carried out a systematic review (PROSPERO registration number 131817) to assess the effect of interventions to increase PA levels in this region. We also assessed their effects on anthropometry and cardiovascular risk. A systematic search of six databases (Medline, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Cochrane, Web of Science) was performed to identify randomized and non-randomized intervention studies performed in adults and children published between January 1985 and November 2020. We included studies published in English or Arabic, and included PA interventions regardless of setting, delivery, and duration. The primary outcomes were changes in PA duration and intensity. Secondary outcomes included anthropometric measures (e.g., weight, body mass index) and cardiovascular risk profiles (e.g., lipid measures, blood glucose). Two independent reviewers screened studies in accordance with pre-determined criteria, extracted data, assessed risk of bias (Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and Newcastle Ottawa Scale) and undertook a narrative synthesis. From 13,026 records identified, 14 studies were included. Nine studies focussed exclusively on changing PA behaviour, resulting in statistically significant increases in step count ranging from an additional 757 steps/day (95% confidence interval [CI] 0-1,513) to 3,853 steps/day (95% CI 3,703-4,002). Five identified studies were multi-component lifestyle interventions, targeting people at higher risk (due to obesity or type 2 diabetes). Evidence for increases in PA from multi-component studies was limited, although improvements were seen in outcomes e.g. body weight and blood lipid levels. In conclusion, relatively few studies have focussed on changing PA behaviour, despite the urgent need in the GCC. Limited evidence suggested that pedometer-based programmes encouraging step counting and walking were effective in promoting PA, at least in the short term. Policies to roll out such interventions should be implemented and evaluated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".