Delivering brief physical activity interventions in primary care: a systematic review.

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.

Sensitivity of chest X-ray for detecting lung cancer in people presenting with symptoms: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing use of computed tomography (CT), chest X-ray remains the first-line investigation for suspected lung cancer in primary care in the UK. No systematic review evidence exists as to the sensitivity of chest X-ray for detecting lung cancer in people presenting with symptoms. AIM: To estimate the sensitivity of chest X-ray for detecting lung cancer in symptomatic people. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review was conducted to determine the sensitivity of chest X-ray for the detection of lung cancer. METHOD: Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched; a grey literature search was also performed. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies met the eligibility criteria. Almost all were of poor quality. Only one study had the diagnostic accuracy of chest X-ray as its primary objective. Most articles were case studies with a high risk of bias. Several were drawn from non-representative groups, for example, specific presentations, histological subtypes, or comorbidities. Only three studies had a low risk of bias. Two primary care studies reported sensitivities of 76.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 64.5 to 84.2%) and 79.3% (95% CI = 67.6 to 91.0%). One secondary care study reported a sensitivity of 79.7% (95% CI = 72.7 to 86.8%). CONCLUSION: Though there is a paucity of evidence, the highest-quality studies suggest that the sensitivity of chest X-ray for symptomatic lung cancer is only 77% to 80%. GPs should consider if further investigation is necessary in high-risk patients who have had a negative chest X-ray.

Does sports participation (including level of performance and previous injury) increase risk of osteoarthritis? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To assess the relationship between sport and osteoarthritis (OA), and specifically to determine whether previous participation, in terms of level (elite or non-elite), type of sport, intensity or previous injury, was associated with OA. METHODS: This systematic review was developed using PRISMA guidelines. Databases were searched (to May 2016). Narrative review and meta-analysis (with risk ratio (RR) and 95% CIs) approaches were undertaken where appropriate. Study quality was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: 46 studies were included. Narratively, 31 studies reported an increased risk of OA, with 19 demonstrating an increased risk in elite athletes. There was an increased risk after sports exposure (irrespective of type; RR 1.37; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.64; 21 studies). It remained uncertain whether there was a difference in risk of OA between elite and non-elite athletes (RR 1.37; 95% CI 0.84 to 2.22; 17 studies). The risk was higher in soccer (RR 1.42; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.77; 15 studies) but lower in runners (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.41; 12 studies). 9 studies showed an association with the intensity of sport undertaken and OA. 5 studies demonstrated a higher prevalence of OA following meniscectomies and anterior cruciate ligament tears. Overall, the evidence was of GRADE 'very low' quality. CONCLUSIONS: There was very low-quality evidence to support an increased relationship between sports participation and OA in elite participants. It is unclear whether there is a difference in risk between elite and non-elite participants with further prospective studies needed to evaluate this. Pooled findings suggested that significant injuries were associated with OA in soccer players.