Yoga has been recommended as a muscle strengthening and balance activity in national and global physical activity guidelines. However, the evidence base establishing the effectiveness of yoga in improving physical function and health related quality of life (HRQoL) in an older adult population not recruited on the basis of any specific disease or condition, has not been systematically reviewed. The objective of this study was to synthesise existing evidence on the effects of yoga on physical function and HRQoL in older adults not characterised by any specific clinical condition. The following databases were systematically searched in September 2017: MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, AMED and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Study inclusion criteria: Older adult participants with mean age of 60 years and above, not recruited on the basis of any specific disease or condition; yoga intervention compared with inactive controls (example: wait-list control, education booklets) or active controls (example: walking, chair aerobics); physical function and HRQoL outcomes; and randomised/cluster randomised controlled trials published in English. A vote counting analysis and meta-analysis with standardised effect sizes (Hedges’ g) computed using random effects models were conducted. A total of 27 records from 22 RCTs were included (17 RCTs assessed physical function and 20 assessed HRQoL). The meta-analysis revealed significant effects (5% level of significance) favouring the yoga group for the following physical function outcomes compared with inactive controls: balance (effect size (ES) = 0.7), lower body flexibility (ES = 0.5), lower limb strength (ES = 0.45); compared with active controls: lower limb strength (ES = 0.49), lower body flexibility (ES = 0.28). For HRQoL, significant effects favouring yoga were found compared to inactive controls for: depression (ES = 0.64), perceived mental health (ES = 0.6), perceived physical health (ES = 0.61), sleep quality (ES = 0.65), and vitality (ES = 0.31); compared to active controls: depression (ES = 0.54). This review is the first to compare the effects of yoga with active and inactive controls in older adults not characterised by a specific clinical condition. Results indicate that yoga interventions improve multiple physical function and HRQoL outcomes in this population compared to both control conditions. This study provides robust evidence for promoting yoga in physical activity guidelines for older adults as a multimodal activity that improves aspects of fitness like strength, balance and flexibility, as well as mental wellbeing. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016038052 .

Background: The physician–patient encounter presents an ideal opportunity for physical activity (PA) promotion. This review aims to (i) explore the breadth and depth of existing literature investigating doctors’ perceptions of PA promotion in the United Kingdom (UK) and (ii) identify factors influencing the extent to which doctors engage in PA promotion during patient interactions. Methods: A five-stage scoping review methodology and the PRISMA-ScR guidance were followed: Stage 1—research questions specified; Stage 2—relevant studies identified by searching five electronic databases and manual screening of references; Stage 3—studies screened using Covidence™; Stage 4—study data extracted and charted; and Stage 5—findings from included studies were analysed, summarised and reported using (i) descriptive numerical analysis to provide insight into study characteristics and (ii) narrative summary of the evidence categorised by factors that influence doctors’ engagement with PA promotion. Results: In total, 16,961 studies were screened. Nineteen studies were included in the review with most conducted in primary care focusing on the perceptions of general practitioners. Seven influencing factors were identified: knowledge and training, personal interest and PA level, time, resources, confidence, the perceived role of the doctor and patient relevance. Conclusion: This review provides new evidence that historical barriers and influencing factors have a persisting impact on the ability and willingness of UK doctors to engage with PA promotion with patients. Previous efforts to address these factors would appear to have had limited success. Further intervention efforts are required to ensure more widespread and effective PA promotion to patients.

The evidence regarding the benefits of yoga for treating psychological trauma is well-established; however, there is a paucity of qualitative reviews exploring this topic. The purpose of this rapid review is to gain a deeper understanding of the impact that yoga can have on people with a history of psychological trauma and to reveal barriers and facilitators to the uptake of yoga in this cohort, from a qualitative perspective. The Ovid(EMBASE), Ovid(MEDLINE), PsycINFO, PubMed, and SPORTDiscus databases were searched using key terms. The systematic search generated 148 records, and 11 peer-reviewed articles met the inclusion criteria. The following main impacts of yoga on participants were identified: feeling an increased sense of self-compassion; feeling more centred; developing their coping skills; having a better mind–body relationship; and improving their relationships with others. The main barriers were also identified: concerns initiating yoga; time and motivational issues; and the costs and location of classes. The main facilitator was the feeling of safety generated in the trauma-informed yoga classes. This review suggests that yoga offers great potential in the field of trauma recovery. Despite this, more high-quality research with rigorous methodologies is called for to allow this field to advance.

Background: Sedentary behaviour is linked to increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal issues and poor mental well-being. Contact (call) centres are associated with higher levels of sedentary behaviour than other office-based workplaces. Stand Up for Health is an adaptive intervention designed to reduce sedentary behaviour in contact centres. Objectives: The objectives were to test the acceptability and feasibility of implementing the intervention; to assess the feasibility of the study design and methods; to scope the feasibility of a future health economic evaluation; and to consider the impact of COVID-19 on the intervention. All sites received no intervention for between 3 and 12 months after the start of the study, as a waiting list control. Design: This was a cluster-randomised stepped-wedge feasibility design. Setting: The trial was set in 11 contact centres across the UK. Participants: Eleven contact centres and staff. Intervention: Stand Up for Health involved two workshops with staff in which staff developed activities for their context and culture. Activities ranged from using standing desks to individual goal-setting, group walks and changes to workplace policies and procedures. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was accelerometer-measured sedentary time. The secondary outcomes were subjectively measured sedentary time, overall sedentary behaviour, physical activity, productivity, mental well-being and musculoskeletal health. Results: Stand Up for Health was implemented in 7 out of 11 centres and was acceptable, feasible and sustainable (objective 1). The COVID-19 pandemic affected the delivery of the intervention, involvement of contact centres, data collection and analysis. Organisational factors were deemed most important to the success of Stand Up for Health but also the most challenging to change. There were also difficulties with the stepped-wedge design, specifically maintaining contact centre interest (objective 2). Feasible methods for estimating cost-efficiency from an NHS and a Personal Social Services perspective were identified, assuming that alternative feasible effectiveness methodology can be applied. Detailed activity-based costing of direct intervention costs was achieved and, therefore, deemed feasible (objective 3). There was significantly more sedentary time spent in the workplace by the centres that received the intervention than those that did not (mean difference 84.06 minutes, 95% confidence interval 4.07 to 164.1 minutes). The other objective outcomes also tended to favour the control group. Limitations: There were significant issues with the stepped-wedge design, including difficulties in maintaining centre interest and scheduling data collection. Collection of accelerometer data was not feasible during the pandemic. Conclusions: Stand Up for Health is an adaptive, feasible and sustainable intervention. However, the stepped-wedge study design was not feasible. The effectiveness of Stand Up for Health was not demonstrated and clinically important reductions in sedentary behaviour may not be seen in a larger study. However, it may still be worthwhile conducting an effectiveness study of Stand Up for Health incorporating activities more relevant to hybrid workplaces. Future work: Future work could include developing hybrid (office and/or home working) activities for Stand Up for Health; undertaking a larger effectiveness study and follow-up economic analysis (subject to its success); and exploring organisational features of contact centres that affect the implementation of interventions such as Stand Up for Health. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN11580369. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 10, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.