Effect of exercise referral schemes in primary care on physical activity and improving health outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To assess the impact of exercise referral schemes on physical activity and health outcomes. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and ongoing trial registries up to October 2009. We also checked study references. Study selection - Design: randomised controlled trials or non-randomised controlled (cluster or individual) studies published in peer review journals. - Population: sedentary individuals with or without medical diagnosis. - Exercise referral schemes defined as: clear referrals by primary care professionals to third party service providers to increase physical activity or exercise, physical activity or exercise programmes tailored to individuals, and initial assessment and monitoring throughout programmes. - Comparators: usual care, no intervention, or alternative exercise referral schemes. Results Eight randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, comparing exercise referral schemes with usual care (six trials), alternative physical activity intervention (two), and an exercise referral scheme plus a self determination theory intervention (one). Compared with usual care, follow-up data for exercise referral schemes showed an increased number of participants who achieved 90-150 minutes of physical activity of at least moderate intensity per week (pooled relative risk 1.16, 95% confidence intervals 1.03 to 1.30) and a reduced level of depression (pooled standardised mean difference −0.82, −1.28 to −0.35). Evidence of a between group difference in physical activity of moderate or vigorous intensity or in other health outcomes was inconsistent at follow-up. We did not find any difference in outcomes between exercise referral schemes and the other two comparator groups. None of the included trials separately reported outcomes in individuals with specific medical diagnoses. Substantial heterogeneity in the quality and nature of the exercise referral schemes across studies might have contributed to the inconsistency in outcome findings. Conclusions Considerable uncertainty remains as to the effectiveness of exercise referral schemes for increasing physical activity, fitness, or health indicators, or whether they are an efficient use of resources for sedentary people with or without a medical diagnosis.

Is the mental wellbeing of young Australians best represented by a single, multidimensional or bifactor model?

Internationally there is a growing interest in the mental wellbeing of young people. However, it is unclear whether mental wellbeing is best conceptualized as a general wellbeing factor or a multidimensional construct. This paper investigated whether mental wellbeing, measured by the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF), is best represented by: (1) a single-factor general model; (2) a three-factor multidimensional model or (3) a combination of both (bifactor model). 2,220 young Australians aged between 16 and 25 years completed an online survey including the MHC-SF and a range of other wellbeing and mental ill-health measures. Exploratory factor analysis supported a bifactor solution, comprised of a general wellbeing factor, and specific group factors of psychological, social and emotional wellbeing. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the bifactor model had a better fit than competing single and three-factor models. The MHC-SF total score was more strongly associated with other wellbeing and mental ill-health measures than the social, emotional or psychological subscale scores. Findings indicate that the mental wellbeing of young people is best conceptualized as an overarching latent construct (general wellbeing) to which emotional, social and psychological domains contribute. The MHC-SF total score is a valid and reliable measure of this general wellbeing factor.