24-Hour Movement Behaviours (Physical Activity, Sedentary Behaviour and Sleep) Association with Glycaemic Control and Psychosocial Outcomes in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Studies.

Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) is a condition requiring 24-hour management. The way in which an individual combines their 24-hour movement behaviours (24-h MBs), which is comprised of physical activity (PA), sedentary behaviour (SB), and sleep, throughout the day can have a significant impact on physical and mental health. This mixed methods systematic review aimed to investigate 24-h MBs' relationship with glycaemic control and psychosocial outcomes in adolescents (11-18 years) with T1D. Ten databases were searched for quantitative and qualitative English language articles reporting at least one of the behaviours and their relationship with outcomes. There were no restrictions on article publication dates or study design. Articles were subjected to title and abstract screening, full text screening, data extraction and quality assessment. Data were summarised narratively, and a meta-analysis was conducted where possible. From 9922 studies, 84 were included for data extraction (quantitative (n = 76), qualitative (n = 8)). Meta-analyses revealed a significant favourable association between PA and HbA1c (-0.22 [95% CI: -0.35, -0.08; I2 = 92.7%; p = 0.001). SB had an insignificant unfavourable association with HbA1c (0.12 [95% CI: -0.06, 0.28; I2 = 86.1%; p = 0.07]) and sleep had an insignificant favourable association (-0.03 [95% CI: -0.21, 0.15; I2 = 65.9%; p = 0.34]). Importantly, no study investigated how combinations of behaviours collectively interacted and impacted on outcomes.

Adherence to Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Insomnia: An Updated Systematic Review.

This article discusses information extracted from 53 studies that have measured adherence to cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia. There has been an increase in more complex and less biased methods for assessing adherence that move beyond simply asking the patients whether they have adhered to the intervention or not. There is a need for a consensus around how to measure adherence, if clinicians want to arrive at an estimate of optimal adherence. Heterogeneity of studies, particularly in the way adherence is operationalized, prohibited conclusions about the relationship between adherence and outcome, as well as about predictors of adherence.