Factors that influence participation in physical activity for people with bipolar disorder: a synthesis of qualitative evidence.

BACKGROUND: Mental health problems contribute significantly to the overall disease burden worldwide and are major causes of disability, suicide, and ischaemic heart disease. People with bipolar disorder report lower levels of physical activity than the general population, and are at greater risk of chronic health conditions including cardiovascular disease and obesity. These contribute to poor health outcomes. Physical activity has the potential to improve quality of life and physical and mental well-being. OBJECTIVES: To identify the factors that influence participation in physical activity for people diagnosed with bipolar disorder from the perspectives of service users, carers, service providers, and practitioners to help inform the design and implementation of interventions that promote physical activity. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and eight other databases to March 2021. We also contacted experts in the field, searched the grey literature, and carried out reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with an identifiable qualitative component. We included studies that focused on the experiences and attitudes of service users, carers, service providers, and healthcare professionals towards physical activity for bipolar disorder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using a data extraction form designed for this review. We assessed methodological limitations using a list of predefined questions. We used the "best fit" framework synthesis based on a revised version of the Health Belief Model to analyse and present the evidence. We assessed methodological limitations using the CASP Qualitative Checklist. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) guidance to assess our confidence in each finding. We examined each finding to identify factors to inform the practice of health and care professionals and the design and development of physical activity interventions for people with bipolar disorder. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 studies involving a total of 592 participants (422 participants who contributed qualitative data to an online survey, 170 participants in qualitative research studies). Most studies explored the views and experiences of physical activity of people with experience of bipolar disorder. A number of studies also reported on personal experiences of physical activity components of lifestyle interventions. One study included views from family carers and clinicians. The majority of studies were from high-income countries, with only one study conducted in a middle-income country. Most participants were described as stable and had been living with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder for a number of years. We downgraded our confidence in several of the findings from high confidence to moderate or low confidence, as some findings were based on only small amounts of data, and the findings were based on studies from only a few countries, questioning the relevance of these findings to other settings. We also had very few perspectives of family members, other carers, or health professionals supporting people with bipolar disorder. The studies did not include any findings from service providers about their perspectives on supporting this aspect of care. There were a number of factors that limited people's ability to undertake physical activity. Shame and stigma about one's physical appearance and mental health diagnosis were discussed. Some people felt their sporting skills/competencies had been lost when they left school. Those who had been able to maintain exercise through the transition into adulthood appeared to be more likely to include physical activity in their regular routine. Physical health limits and comorbid health conditions limited activity. This included bipolar medication, being overweight, smoking, alcohol use, poor diet and sleep, and these barriers were linked to negative coping skills. Practical problems included affordability, accessibility, transport links, and the weather. Workplace or health schemes that offered discounts were viewed positively. The lack of opportunity for exercise within inpatient mental health settings was a problem. Facilitating factors included being psychologically stable and ready to adopt new lifestyle behaviours. There were positive benefits of being active outdoors and connecting with nature. Achieving balance, rhythm, and routine helped to support mood management. Fitting physical activity into a regular routine despite fluctuating mood or motivation appeared to be beneficial if practised at the right intensity and pace. Over- or under-exercising could be counterproductive and accelerate depressive or manic moods. Physical activity also helped to provide a structure to people's daily routines and could lead to other positive lifestyle benefits. Monitoring physical or other activities could be an effective way to identify potential triggers or early warning signs. Technology was helpful for some. People who had researched bipolar disorder and had developed a better understanding of the condition showed greater confidence in managing their care or providing care to others. Social support from friends/family or health professionals was an enabling factor, as was finding the right type of exercise, which for many people was walking. Other benefits included making social connections, weight loss, improved quality of life, and better mood regulation. Few people had been told of the benefits of physical activity. Better education and training of health professionals could support a more holistic approach to physical and mental well-being. Involving mental health professionals in the multidisciplinary delivery of physical activity interventions could be beneficial and improve care. Clear guidelines could help people to initiate and incorporate lifestyle changes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very little research focusing on factors that influence participation in physical activity in bipolar disorder. The studies we identified suggest that men and women with bipolar disorder face a range of obstacles and challenges to being active. The evidence also suggests that there are effective ways to promote managed physical activity. The research highlighted the important role that health and care settings, and professionals, can play in assessing individuals' physical health needs and how healthy lifestyles may be promoted. Based on these findings, we have provided a summary of key elements to consider for developing physical activity interventions for bipolar disorder.

Centre-based early education interventions for improving school readiness: A systematic review.

Background: Globally, children are legally obliged to attend school at a certain age (ranging from 4 to 7 years old). Developmental differences are rarely considered at school entry nor are they always reflected in the teaching and learning environment. Children who start school without being ready to cope may be significantly disadvantaged. Failure at school can impact directly on long-term outcomes such as unemployment, crime, adolescent pregnancy, and psychological and physical morbidity in adulthood. In contrast, experiencing success at school can impact positively on a child's self esteem, behaviour, attitude, and future outcomes. School readiness interventions aim to prepare a child for the academic content of education and the psychosocial competencies considered important for learning such as self-regulation, listening, following instructions and learning to share in play and other social settings. There is a need for evidence of the effectiveness of centre-based school readiness interventions. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of centre-based interventions for improving school readiness in preschool children. Search Methods: In October 2021 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, ERIC, eight additional databases and three trials registers. Other eligible studies were identified through handsearches of reference lists, reports, reviews and relevant websites. Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing centre-based school readiness interventions to no intervention, wait-list control or treatment as usual (TAU) for children (aged three to 7 years before starting compulsory education). The primary outcomes were school readiness and adverse effects. Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Main Results: We included data from 32 trials involving 16,899 children (6590 included in at least one meta-analysis). Four studies compared centre-based early education interventions with no treatment controls. Twenty-two trials compared an enriched school curriculum to treatment as usual (TAU). Children were aged between 3 and 7 years old (mean age 4.4 years), 51.7% were boys and at least 70% were from a racial/ethnic minority group. Most studies were conducted in the USA and mainly located in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation. Interventions were delivered in centre-based settings (pre-kindergarten or elementary schools), for at least one half day, 4 days per week over the academic year. Follow-up ranged from up to 1 year (short-term), 1-2 years (medium-term) and over 2 years (long-term). We judged the certainty of evidence to be very low to moderate across all outcome measures. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because the included studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals, and inconsistency due to statistical heterogeneity. Most studies were considered to be low or unclear risk for selection, detection, performance, attrition, selective reporting, and other bias. Allocation bias was at high risk in 10 studies. The US federal government funded most of the studies. Comparison 1. Centre-based early education interventions for improving school readiness versus no intervention Cognitive development. There may be little to no difference in cognitive development between centre-based early education interventions and no intervention at long-term follow-up (MD: 3.28, 95% CI: 0.23 to 6.34; p = 0.04; 2 studies, 361 participants; low certainty evidence). Emotional well-being and social competence. There may be no clear difference in social skills in centre-based early education interventions compared to the no intervention control group at short-term follow-up (SMD: -0.11, 95% CI: -0.54 to 0.33; p = 0.63; 3 studies, 632 participants; low certainty evidence). Heterogeneity for this outcome was substantial (I² = 71%). Health development. Narrative analysis from a single study showed that centre-based early education interventions may improve health development outcomes such as health checks, immunisation compliance and dental care (1 study, 142 participants; low certainty evidence).None of the studies reported on school readiness, adverse effects, or physical development. Comparison 2. Centre-based early education interventions for improving school readiness versus TAU School readiness. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of centre-based early education interventions compared to TAU on school readiness up to 1 year post-intervention (SMD: 1.17, 95% CI: -0.61 to 2.95; p = 0.20; 2 studies, 374 participants; very low certainty evidence). Heterogeneity for this outcome was considerable (I² = 95%). Cognitive development. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on cognitive development between centre-based early education interventions and TAU at long-term follow-up (MD: 9.34, 95% CI: -6.64 to 25.32; p = 0.25; 2 studies, 136 participants; very low certainty evidence). Heterogeneity for this outcome was considerable (I² = 92%). Emotional well-being and social competence. A meta-analysis of 12 studies demonstrated there may be little to no difference in social skills between centre-based early education interventions and TAU at short-term follow-up (SMD: 0.11, 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.28; p = 0.19; 12 studies, 4806 participants; low certainty evidence). Physical development. Evidence from one study showed that centre-based early education interventions likely have little to no difference in increasing fine motor skills compared to TAU at short-term follow-up (MD: 0.80, 95% CI: -1.11 to 2.71; 1 study, 334 participants; moderate certainty evidence).None of the studies measured adverse effects or health development. Authors' Conclusions: We found very low, low and moderate-certainty evidence that centre-based interventions convey little to no difference to children starting school compared to no intervention or TAU, up to 1 year. More research, measuring relevant outcomes, conducted outside the USA, is required to improve programmes designed to meet the needs of children starting school.