The latest medical research on Psychologist

Physical activity has benefits for the cardiovascular system, however, what levels and types of activity provide optimal cardiovascular health is unclear. We aimed to determine the level of physical activity that has the most benefits against cardiovascular diseases (CVD).

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for prospective cohort studies on leisure-time (LTPA) or occupational physical activity (OPA) as the exposure and major types of CVD (total CVD, coronary heart disease [CHD], stroke, and atrial fibrillation [AF]) incidence as the outcome. Risk of bias of studies was evaluated using the ROBINS-I tool. Summary hazard ratios (HR) were calculated using random-effects pairwise model.

A total of 103 studies were included in the analysis. The highest versus the lowest LTPA was associated with a lower risk of overall CVD (HR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.77-0.86), CHD (HR = 0.83; 0.79-0.88), and stroke (HR = 0.83; 0.79-0.88), but not AF (HR = 0.98; 0.92-1.05). Linear dose-response analyses showed a 10%, 12%, 9%, and 8% risk reduction in CVD, CHD, stroke, and AF incidence, respectively, for every 20 MET-hours/week increase in LTPA. In nonlinear dose-response analyses, there were inverse associations up to 20 MET-hours/week with 19% and 20% reduction in CVD and CHD risk, and up to 25 MET-hours/week with 22% reduction in stroke, with no further risk reduction at higher LTPA levels. For AF, there was a U-shaped nonlinear association with the maximum 8% risk reduction at 10 MET-hours/week of LTPA. Higher levels of OPA were not associated with risk of CVD, CHD, stroke, or AF.

Overall, results showed an inverse dose-response relationship between LTPA and risk of CVD, CHD, stroke, and AF. Running was the most beneficial LTPA but the risk was similar among various LTPA intensities. OPA showed no benefits in total or any type of CVD.

The development of validated "fit-for-purpose" rapid assessment tools to measure 24-hour movement behaviours in children aged 0-5 years is a research priority. This study evaluated the test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of the open-ended and closed-ended versions of the Movement Behaviour Questionnaire for baby (MBQ-B) and child (MBQ-C).

300 parent-child dyads completed the 10-day study protocol (MBQ-B: N = 85; MBQ-C: N = 215). To assess validity, children wore an accelerometer on the non-dominant wrist (ActiGraph GT3X+) for 7 days and parents completed 2 × 24-hour time use diaries (TUDs) recording screen time and sleep on two separate days. For babies (i.e., not yet walking), parents completed 2 × 24-hour TUDs recording tummy time, active play, restrained time, screen time, and sleep on days 2 and 5 of the 7-day monitoring period. To assess test-retest reliability, parents were randomised to complete either the open- or closed-ended versions of the MBQ on day 7 and on day 10. Test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC's) were calculated using generalized linear mixed models and validity was assessed via Spearman correlations.

Test-retest reliability for the MBQ-B was good to excellent with ICC's ranging from 0.80 to 0.94 and 0.71-0.93 for the open- and closed-ended versions, respectively. For both versions, significant positive correlations were observed between 24-hour diary and MBQ-B reported tummy time, active play, restrained time, screen time, and sleep (rho = 0.39-0.87). Test-retest reliability for the MBQ-C was moderate to excellent with ICC's ranging from 0.68 to 0.98 and 0.44-0.97 for the open- and closed-ended versions, respectively. For both the open- and closed-ended versions, significant positive correlations were observed between 24-hour diary and MBQ-C reported screen time and sleep (rho = 0.44-0.86); and between MBQ-C reported and device-measured time in total activity and energetic play (rho = 0.27-0.42).

The MBQ-B and MBQ-C are valid and reliable rapid assessment tools for assessing 24-hour movement behaviours in infants, toddlers, and pre-schoolers. Both the open- and closed-ended versions of the MBQ are suitable for research conducted for policy and practice purposes, including the evaluation of scaled-up early obesity prevention programs.

Community treatment orders have been introduced in many jurisdictions with increasing use over time. We conducted a rapid umbrella review to synthesise the quantitative and qualitative evidence from systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of their potential harms and benefits.

A systematic search of Medline, PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO for relevant systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses. Where available, participants on community treatment orders were compared with controls receiving voluntary psychiatric treatment. This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023398767) and the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/zeq35).

In all, 17 publications from 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. Quantitative synthesis of data from different systematic reviews was not possible. There were mixed findings on the effects of community treatment orders on health service use, and clinical, psychosocial or forensic outcomes. Whereas uncontrolled evidence suggested benefits, results were more equivocal from controlled studies and randomised controlled trials showed no effect. Any changes in health service use took several years to become apparent. There was evidence that better targeting of community treatment order use led to improved outcomes. Although there were other benefits, such as in mortality, findings were mostly rated as suggestive using predetermined and standardised criteria. Qualitative findings suggested that family members and clinicians were generally positive about the effect of community treatment orders but those subjected to them were more ambivalent. Any possible harms were under-researched, particularly in quantitative designs.

The evidence for the benefits of community treatment orders remains inconclusive. At the very least, use should be better targeted to people most likely to benefit. More quantitative research on harms is indicated.