Search

Background: Around 15% of the global population live with some form of disabilities and experience worse health outcomes, less participation in the community and are part of fewer activities outside the home. Outdoor mobility interventions aim to improve the ability to move, travel and orient outside the home and could influence the number of activities outside the home, participation and quality of life. However, outdoor mobility interventions may also lead to harm like falls or injuries or have unforeseen effects which could lead to mortality or hospitalization. Objectives: To assess the efficacy of interventions aiming to improve outdoor mobility for adults living with disabilities and to explore if the efficacy varies between different conditions and different intervention components. Search Methods: Standard, extensive Campbell search methods were used, including a total of 12 databases searched during January 2023, including trial registries. Selection Criteria: Only randomized controlled trials were included, focusing on people living with disabilities, comparing interventions to improve outdoor mobility to control interventions as well as comparing different types of interventions to improve outdoor mobility. Data Collection and Analysis: Standard methodological procedures expected by Campbell were used. The following important outcomes were 1. Activity outside the home; 2. Engagement in everyday life activities; 3. Participation; 4. Health‐related Quality of Life; 5. Major harms; 6. Minor harms. The impact of the interventions was evaluated in the shorter (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) after starting the intervention. Results are presented using risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD), and standardized mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias 2‐tool and the GRADE‐framework were used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Main Results: The screening comprised of 12.894 studies and included 22 studies involving 2.675 people living with disabilities and identified 12 ongoing studies. All reported outcomes except one (reported in one study, some concerns of bias) had overall high risk of bias. Thirteen studies were conducted in participants with disabilities due to stroke, five studies with older adults living with disabilities, two studies with wheelchair users, one study in participants with disabilities after a hip fracture, and one study in participants with cognitive impairments. Skill training interventions versus control interventions (16 studies) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of skill training interventions versus control interventions not aimed to improve outdoor mobility among all people living with disabilities both in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for Activity outside the home; Participation; Health‐related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. Skill training interventions may improve engagement in everyday life activities among people with disabilities in the shorter term (RR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.84; I2 = 7%; RD: 0.15; 95% CI: −0.02 to 0.32; I2 = 71%; 692 participants; three studies; low certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain in the longer term, based on very low certainty evidence. Subgroup analysis of skill training interventions among people living with disabilities due to cognitive impairments suggests that such interventions may improve activity outside the home in the shorter term (SMD: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.81; I2 = NA; 118 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis of skill training interventions among people living with cognitive impairments suggests that such interventions may improve health‐related quality of life in the shorter term (SMD: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.88; I2 = NA; 118 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Physical training interventions versus control interventions (five studies) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of physical training interventions versus control interventions not aimed to improve outdoor mobility in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for: Engagement in everyday life activities; Participation; Health‐related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. Physical training interventions may improve activity outside the home in the shorter (SMD: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.61; I2 = NA; 228 participants; one study; low certainty evidence) and longer term (≥7 months) (SMD: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.54; I2 = NA; 216 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Comparison of different outdoor mobility interventions (one study) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of outdoor mobility interventions of different lengths in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for Activity outside the home; Engagement in everyday life activities; Participation; Health‐related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. No studies explored the efficacy of other types of interventions. Authors' Conclusions: Twenty‐two studies of interventions to improve outdoor mobility for people living with disabilities were identified, but the evidence still remains uncertain about most benefits and harms of these interventions, both in the short‐ and long term. This is primarily related to risk of bias, small underpowered studies and limited reporting of important outcomes for people living with disabilities. For people with disabilities, skill training interventions may improve engagement in everyday life in the short term, and improve activity outside the home and health‐related quality of life for people with cognitive impairments in the short term. Still, this is based on low certainty evidence from few studies and should be interpreted with caution. One study with low certainty evidence suggests that physical training interventions may improve activity outside the home in the short term. In addition, the effect sizes across all outcomes were considered small or trivial, and could be of limited relevance to people living with disabilities. The evidence is currently uncertain if there are interventions that can improve outdoor mobility for people with disabilities, and can improve other important outcomes, while avoiding harms. To guide decisions about the use of interventions to improve outdoor mobility, future studies should use more rigorous design and report important outcomes for people with disabilities to reduce the current uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To review the efficacy of exercise interventions on sport-related concussion (SRC) incidence, as well as on linear and rotational head accelerations, and isometric neck strength and to assess reporting completeness of exercise interventions using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT)., Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis, according to the Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science guidelines., Data Sources: Six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science CC and SPORTDiscus) were searched up to 26 June 2023., Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs or quasi-experimental studies, evaluating exercise interventions on SRC incidence, linear and rotational head accelerations, and/or isometric neck strength in male and/or female athletes of any age, and/or in a healthy general population., Results: A total of 26 articles were included. A large effect size was observed for resistance training (RT) on isometric neck strength (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.85; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.13; high-quality evidence). Non-significant effect sizes were observed for neuromuscular warm-up programmes on SRC incidence (risk ratio 0.69; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.23; low-quality evidence), or for RT on linear head acceleration (SMD -0.43; 95% CI -1.26 to 0.40; very low-quality evidence) or rotational head acceleration (SMD 0.08; 95% CI -0.61 to 0.77; low-quality evidence). No studies assessed the impact of RT on SRC incidence. CERT scores ranged from 4 to 16 (out of 19) with median score of 11.5 (IQR 9-13)., Conclusion: RT increases isometric neck strength, but the effect on SRC incidence is unknown. More adequately powered and rigorous trials are needed to evaluate the effect of exercise interventions on SRC incidence, and on linear and rotational head accelerations. Future studies should follow CERT guidelines, as the included interventions were generally not reported in sufficient detail for accurate replication., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42023435033., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)