Summary: The linkage of individuals with obesity and COVID‐19 is controversial and lacks systematic reviews. After a systematic search of the Chinese and English language literature on COVID‐19, 75 studies were used to conduct a series of meta‐analyses on the relationship of individuals with obesity–COVID‐19 over the full spectrum from risk to mortality. A systematic review of the mechanistic pathways for COVID‐19 and individuals with obesity is presented. Pooled analysis show individuals with obesity were more at risk for COVID‐19 positive, >46.0% higher (OR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.30–1.65;p< 0.0001); for hospitalization, 113% higher (OR = 2.13; 95% CI, 1.74–2.60;p< 0.0001); for ICU admission, 74% higher (OR = 1.74; 95% CI, 1.46–2.08); and for mortality, 48% increase in deaths (OR = 1.48; 95% CI, 1.22–1.80;p< 0.001). Mechanistic pathways for individuals with obesity are presented in depth for factors linked with COVID‐19 risk, severity and their potential for diminished therapeutic and prophylactic treatments among these individuals. Individuals with obesity are linked with large significant increases in morbidity and mortality from COVID‐19. There are many mechanisms that jointly explain this impact. A major concern is that vaccines will be less effective for the individuals with obesity.

Background: Environmental health is a growing area of knowledge, continually increasing and updating the body of evidence linking the environment to human health. Aim: This study summarizes the epidemiological evidence on environmental risk factors from meta-analyses through an umbrella review. Methods: An umbrella review was conducted on meta-analyses of cohort, case-control, case-crossover, and time-series studies that evaluated the associations between environmental risk factors and health outcomes defined as incidence, prevalence, and mortality. The specific search strategy was designed in PubMed using free text and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms related to risk factors, environment, health outcomes, observational studies, and meta-analysis. The search was limited to English, Spanish, and French published articles and studies on humans. The search was conducted on September 20, 2020. Risk factors were defined as any attribute, characteristic, or exposure of an individual that increases the likelihood of developing a disease or death. The environment was defined as the external elements and conditions that surround, influence, and affect a human organism or population’s life and development. The environment definition included the physical environment such as nature, built environment, or pollution, but not the social environment. We excluded occupational exposures, microorganisms, water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), behavioral risk factors, and no-natural disasters. Results: This umbrella review found 197 associations among 69 environmental exposures and 83 diseases and death causes reported in 103 publications. The environmental factors found in this review were air pollution, environmental tobacco smoke, heavy metals, chemicals, ambient temperature, noise, radiation, and urban residential surroundings. Among these, we identified 65 environmental exposures defined as risk factors and 4 environmental protective factors. In terms of study design, 57 included cohort and/or case-control studies, and 46 included time-series and/or case-crossover studies. In terms of the study population, 21 included children, and the rest included adult population and both sexes. In this review, the largest body of evidence was found in air pollution (91 associations among 14 air pollution definitions and 34 diseases and mortality diagnoses), followed by environmental tobacco smoke with 24 associations. Chemicals (including pesticides) were the third larger group of environmental exposures found among the meta-analyses included, with 19 associations. Conclusion: Environmental exposures are an important health determinant. This review provides an overview of an evolving research area and should be used as a complementary tool to understand the connections between the environment and human health. The evidence presented by this review should help to design public health interventions and the implementation of health in all policies approach aiming to improve populational health.

Background: The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region faces unique challenges in promoting physical activity and reducing sedentary behaviors, as the prevalence of insufficient physical activity is higher than the global average. Mobile technologies present a promising approach to delivering behavioral interventions; however, little is known about the effectiveness and user perspectives on these technologies in the MENA region. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of mobile interventions targeting physical activity and sedentary behaviors in the MENA region and explore users’ perspectives on these interventions as well as any other outcomes that might influence users’ adoption and use of mobile technologies (eg, appropriateness and cultural fit). Methods: A systematic search of 5 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Global Index Medicus) was performed. Any primary studies (participants of all ages regardless of medical condition) conducted in the MENA region that investigated the use of mobile technologies and reported any measures of physical activity, sedentary behaviors, or user perceptions were included. We conducted a narrative synthesis of all studies and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the quality of the included RCTs; quality assessment of the rest of the included studies was completed using the relevant Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Results: In total, 27 articles describing 22 interventions (n=10, 37% RCTs) and 4 (15%) nonexperimental studies were included (n=6141, 46% women). Half (11/22, 50%) of the interventions included mobile apps, whereas the other half examined SMS. The main app functions were goal setting and self-monitoring of activity, whereas SMS interventions were primarily used to deliver educational content. Users in experimental studies described several benefits of the interventions (eg, gaining knowledge and receiving reminders to be active). Engagement with the interventions was poorly reported; few studies (8/27, 30%) examined users’ perspectives on the appropriateness or cultural fit of the interventions. Nonexperimental studies examined users’ perspectives on mobile apps and fitness trackers, reporting several barriers to their use, such as perceived lack of usefulness, loss of interest, and technical issues. The meta-analysis of RCTs showed a positive effect of mobile interventions on physical activity outcomes (standardized mean difference=0.45, 95% CI 0.17-0.73); several sensitivity analyses showed similar results. The trim-and-fill method showed possible publication bias. Only 20% (2/10) of the RCTs measured sedentary behaviors; both reported positive changes. Conclusions: The use of mobile interventions for physical activity and sedentary behaviors in the MENA region is in its early stages, with preliminary evidence of effectiveness. Policy makers and researchers should invest in high-quality studies to evaluate long-term effectiveness, intervention engagement, and implementation outcomes, which can inform the design of culturally and socially appropriate interventions for countries in the MENA region. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023392699; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=392699

Background: Saudi Arabia is experiencing rapid development of the built environment and implementing policy changes to promote physical activity (PA) and reduce sedentary behavior (SB) among its population. In light of these developments, this scoping review systematically summarized population levels of PA/SB in Saudi Arabia. Methods: The authors searched 6 databases on December 13, 2021, for articles published in English or Arabic from 2018 to the search date. Studies using population-based sampling in Saudi Arabia and measuring PA/SB were included. Results: Of the 1272 records found, 797 were screened, and 19 studies (9 on children/adolescents age 6–19 y and 10 on adults age 15–75 y) were included. All studies were cross-sectional in design, and 18 studies collected data at only one point in time, ranging from 2009 to 2020. A total of 18 studies relied on self-reporting to assess PA/SB using a variety of questionnaires. Among children/adolescents, approximately 80% to 90% did not attain at least 60 minutes per day of moderate to vigorous PA and 50% to 80% engaged in ≥2 hours per day of screen time or SB. Among adults, approximately 50% to 95% had low or insufficient PA (eg, less than meeting PA guidelines) and about half had a sitting time of ≥5 hours per day. Population-based studies were not found among children 75 years. Conclusions: A high proportion of participants in the reviewed studies did not meet PA recommendations and spent excessive time in SB. Ongoing surveillance efforts for all ages may help identify target populations for interventions and prioritize the national strategy on PA/SB in Saudi Arabia.