Detailed Search Results
| Author/Association: | Hassett L, McKay MJ, Cole J, Moseley AM, Chagpar S, Geerts M, Kwok WS, Jensen C, Sherrington C, Shields N |
| Title: | Effects of sport or physical recreation for adults with physical or intellectual disabilities: a systematic review with meta-analysis [with consumer summary] |
| Source: | British Journal of Sports Medicine 2024 Mar;58(5):269-277 |
| Method: | systematic review |
| Method Score: | This is a systematic review. Systematic reviews are not rated. |
| Consumer Summary: | WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC: People with disabilities are at least twice as likely to be physically inactive as those without disabilities across their adult lifespan. Current evidence indicates health and psychosocial benefits of sport and physical recreation for the general population, but there has not been a synthesis of evidence using meta-analysis evaluating these two types of physical activities for people living with disabilities from a range of health conditions. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Physical recreation may provide small to large effects on mobility and quality of life (and the secondary outcomes of fatigue, depression and anxiety) for people living with disabilities. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low and predominantly for people living with a physical disability. HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY: Several gaps in the evidence were identified where evidence generation is urgently needed: sport and recreation interventions delivered in inclusive community settings, younger adults and adults living with intellectual disabilities. |
| Abstract: | OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of sport or physical recreation on participation, mobility and quality of life for adults living with disabilities. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Six databases searched from inception to May 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials including adults living with a physical or intellectual disability, comparing sport or physical recreation to non-active control. RESULTS: Seventy-four trials (n = 2,954; mean age 55 years) were included. Most (70) trials included people with physical disabilities, none evaluated sport and the most common physical recreation activities tested were traditional Chinese exercise (35%), yoga (27%) and dance (18%). Mean frequency and duration was 65 min/session, two times per week for 13 weeks. Most (86%) interventions were led by people with experience and/or training in the recreation activity, and only 37% reported leader experience and/or training working with people with disabilities. Participation was measured as attendance (mean 81%, 30 intervention groups). Physical recreation improved mobility (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.38, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.69, n = 469) and walking endurance (mean difference (MD) 40.3 m, 95% CI 19.5 to 61.1, n = 801) with low certainty evidence and balance (Berg Balance Scale, range 0 to 56 points; MD 3.4 points, 95% CI 2.3 to 4.4, n = 906) and quality of life (physical health; SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.72, n = 468) with very low certainty evidence, but not walking speed (MD 0.03 m/s, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.11, n = 486). CONCLUSION: Physical recreation may confer multiple benefits for people living with disabilities regardless of the activity chosen, thus offering a potentially enjoyable and scalable strategy to increase physical activity. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018104379. Reproduced with permission from the BMJ Publishing Group. Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):  help |
