How strong is the evidence supporting the WHO guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep in early childhood?

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL European Journal of Clinical Investigation Pub Date : 2024-07-31 DOI:10.1111/eci.14294
Alessandro Bianconi, Matteo Fiore, Enrico Zauli, Cecilia Acuti Martellucci, Annalisa Rosso, Laura Dallolio, Maria Elena Flacco, Lamberto Manzoli
{"title":"How strong is the evidence supporting the WHO guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep in early childhood?","authors":"Alessandro Bianconi, Matteo Fiore, Enrico Zauli, Cecilia Acuti Martellucci, Annalisa Rosso, Laura Dallolio, Maria Elena Flacco, Lamberto Manzoli","doi":"10.1111/eci.14294","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The WHO issued recommendations about the ideal amount of physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep in infants, toddlers and preschool children. To facilitate their interpretation and translation into public health policies, we analysed the quantity and quality of the evidence that supported the development of each WHO recommendation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All data for each exposure-outcome pair analysed in the studies informing WHO guidelines were extracted, and predefined criteria, based upon GRADE methodology, were used to classify each outcome and study result.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 237 studies that could be included, 37 were experimental and 200 were observational, yielding 920 analyses of exposure-outcome associations. Sixty-two analyses used a relevant outcome, with or without significant results. Five of the 10 WHO recommendations were based upon zero analyses with significant results on relevant health outcomes. The remaining recommendations were mostly based upon analyses evaluating obesity-related outcomes. Eight of the 10 GLs thresholds were not supported by any significant analysis on clinically relevant outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While these findings should not be interpreted as an attempt to disprove the benefits of healthy lifestyle habits in early childhood, neither to minimize the work of the experts in this complex research field, very limited evidence currently supports the adoption of recommended thresholds as behavioural surveillance and public health interventions targets. Therefore, until further data are available, public health interventions should be developed balancing whether to focus on the achievement of specific targets that are still not supported by high-quality evidence or on the general promotion of healthy behaviours.</p>","PeriodicalId":12013,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Investigation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Clinical Investigation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.14294","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The WHO issued recommendations about the ideal amount of physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep in infants, toddlers and preschool children. To facilitate their interpretation and translation into public health policies, we analysed the quantity and quality of the evidence that supported the development of each WHO recommendation.

Methods: All data for each exposure-outcome pair analysed in the studies informing WHO guidelines were extracted, and predefined criteria, based upon GRADE methodology, were used to classify each outcome and study result.

Results: Among the 237 studies that could be included, 37 were experimental and 200 were observational, yielding 920 analyses of exposure-outcome associations. Sixty-two analyses used a relevant outcome, with or without significant results. Five of the 10 WHO recommendations were based upon zero analyses with significant results on relevant health outcomes. The remaining recommendations were mostly based upon analyses evaluating obesity-related outcomes. Eight of the 10 GLs thresholds were not supported by any significant analysis on clinically relevant outcomes.

Conclusion: While these findings should not be interpreted as an attempt to disprove the benefits of healthy lifestyle habits in early childhood, neither to minimize the work of the experts in this complex research field, very limited evidence currently supports the adoption of recommended thresholds as behavioural surveillance and public health interventions targets. Therefore, until further data are available, public health interventions should be developed balancing whether to focus on the achievement of specific targets that are still not supported by high-quality evidence or on the general promotion of healthy behaviours.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
支持世界卫生组织关于幼儿期体育活动、久坐行为和睡眠的指导方针的证据有多强?
背景:世卫组织就婴幼儿和学龄前儿童理想的运动量、久坐行为和睡眠时间提出了建议。为了便于解释这些建议并将其转化为公共卫生政策,我们分析了支持世卫组织制定每项建议的证据的数量和质量:方法:我们提取了为世卫组织指南提供信息的研究中分析的每对暴露-结果的所有数据,并根据 GRADE 方法使用预定义的标准对每种结果和研究结果进行分类:在可纳入的 237 项研究中,37 项为实验性研究,200 项为观察性研究,共对 920 项暴露-结果关联进行了分析。62项分析使用了相关结果,无论结果是否显著。世卫组织的 10 项建议中有 5 项是基于对相关健康结果进行的零项有显著结果的分析。其余建议大多基于对肥胖相关结果的评估分析。在 10 项 GLs 临界值中,有 8 项没有得到任何临床相关结果的重要分析支持:虽然这些研究结果不应被解释为试图否定幼儿期健康生活习惯的益处,也不应贬低这一复杂研究领域专家的工作,但目前支持采用推荐阈值作为行为监测和公共卫生干预目标的证据非常有限。因此,在获得更多数据之前,应平衡制定公共卫生干预措施,是侧重于实现仍未得到高质量证据支持的具体目标,还是侧重于普遍推广健康行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
3.60%
发文量
192
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: EJCI considers any original contribution from the most sophisticated basic molecular sciences to applied clinical and translational research and evidence-based medicine across a broad range of subspecialties. The EJCI publishes reports of high-quality research that pertain to the genetic, molecular, cellular, or physiological basis of human biology and disease, as well as research that addresses prevalence, diagnosis, course, treatment, and prevention of disease. We are primarily interested in studies directly pertinent to humans, but submission of robust in vitro and animal work is also encouraged. Interdisciplinary work and research using innovative methods and combinations of laboratory, clinical, and epidemiological methodologies and techniques is of great interest to the journal. Several categories of manuscripts (for detailed description see below) are considered: editorials, original articles (also including randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses), reviews (narrative reviews), opinion articles (including debates, perspectives and commentaries); and letters to the Editor.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Catheter‐related deep vein thrombosis: Where are we at and where are we going? Updates and ongoing unmet clinical needs Routine beta‐blocker therapy after acute coronary syndromes: The end of an era? Adipocyte maturation impacts daunorubicin disposition and metabolism Both low and high body iron stores relate to metabolic syndrome in postmenopausal women: Findings from the VIKING Health Study-Shetland (VIKING I).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1