Author: Leanne Hassett1,2, Marnee J McKay3, Jenni Cole2, Anne M Moseley2, Sakina Chagpar4,2, Minke Geerts2,5, Wing S Kwok4,2, Connie Jensen2, Catherine Sherrington4,2, Nora Shields6
Affiliation: <sup>1</sup> Sydney Musculoskeletal Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Leanne.hassett@sydney.edu.au.
<sup>2</sup> Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
<sup>3</sup> Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
<sup>4</sup> Sydney Musculoskeletal Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
<sup>5</sup> Department of Health Sciences, Groningen University, Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
<sup>6</sup> Olga Tennison Autism Research Centre, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Conference/Journal: Br J Sports Med
Date published: 2023 Dec 21
Other:
Pages: bjsports-2023-107123 , Special Notes: doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2023-107123. , Word Count: 249
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=2954; 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 0-56 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.
Keywords: Physical activity; Recreation; Sport; Systematic review.
PMID: 38129104 DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2023-107123