Abstract
Background
Physical activity (PA) brief interventions (BIs) involving screening and/or advice are recommended in primary care but frequency of delivery is unknown.
Aim
To examine the extent to which PA BIs are delivered in primary care, and explore factors associated with delivery, receipt, and patient receptivity.
Design and setting
A mixed-methods systematic review of studies conducted worldwide, with a narrative synthesis of results.
Method
CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and APA PsycINFO index databases were searched for qualitative and quantitative studies, dating from January 2012 to June 2020, that reported the level of delivery and/or receipt of PA BIs in primary care, and/or factors affecting delivery, receipt, and patient receptivity. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Attitudes towards and barriers to delivery were coded into the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behaviour model.
Results
After screening a total of 13 066 records, 66 articles were included in the review. The extent of PA screening and advice in primary care varied widely (2.4%–100% and 0.6%–100%, respectively). PA advice was delivered more often to patients with a higher body mass index, lower PA levels, and/or more comorbidities. Barriers — including a lack of time and training/guidelines — remain, despite recommendations from the World Health Organization and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence that PA advice should be provided in primary care. Few studies explored patients’ receptivity to advice.
Conclusion
PA BIs are not delivered frequently or consistently in primary care. Addressing barriers to delivery through system-level changes and training programmes could improve and increase the advice given. Understanding when patients are receptive to PA interventions could enhance health professionals’ confidence in their delivery.
Physical activity (PA) brief interventions (BIs) involving screening and/or advice are recommended in primary care but frequency of delivery is unknown.
Aim
To examine the extent to which PA BIs are delivered in primary care, and explore factors associated with delivery, receipt, and patient receptivity.
Design and setting
A mixed-methods systematic review of studies conducted worldwide, with a narrative synthesis of results.
Method
CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and APA PsycINFO index databases were searched for qualitative and quantitative studies, dating from January 2012 to June 2020, that reported the level of delivery and/or receipt of PA BIs in primary care, and/or factors affecting delivery, receipt, and patient receptivity. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Attitudes towards and barriers to delivery were coded into the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behaviour model.
Results
After screening a total of 13 066 records, 66 articles were included in the review. The extent of PA screening and advice in primary care varied widely (2.4%–100% and 0.6%–100%, respectively). PA advice was delivered more often to patients with a higher body mass index, lower PA levels, and/or more comorbidities. Barriers — including a lack of time and training/guidelines — remain, despite recommendations from the World Health Organization and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence that PA advice should be provided in primary care. Few studies explored patients’ receptivity to advice.
Conclusion
PA BIs are not delivered frequently or consistently in primary care. Addressing barriers to delivery through system-level changes and training programmes could improve and increase the advice given. Understanding when patients are receptive to PA interventions could enhance health professionals’ confidence in their delivery.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | e209-e216 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | The British Journal of General Practice |
| Volume | 72 |
| Issue number | 716 |
| Early online date | 24 Feb 2022 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Mar 2022 |
Bibliographical note
FundingThis review was supported by Yorkshire Cancer Research (reference: L389RB) and Cancer Research UK (reference: A23517). Mangesh A Thorat is supported by a Cancer Research UK programme grant (reference: C569/A16891). Daniel Powell is supported by the strategic research programme funded by the Scottish Government’s Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services (RESAS) Division. Rebecca J Beeken is supported by Yorkshire Cancer Research Fellowship funding (reference: L389RB).
Keywords
- Primary care
- Physical activity
- Brief interventions
- Health promotion
- Disease prevention
- Systematic review
Access to Document
- Hall_etal_BJGP_Delivering_brief_Physical_AAM
The author(s) retain(s) copyright and responsibility for the content of the AAM. AAMs are published under the CC BY 4.0 license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Hall_etal_BJGP_Delivering_Brief_Physical_VoR
The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This article is Open Access: CC BY 4.0 licence (http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/).