Past research has identified that individuals from BAME communities face health inequalities and report poorer outcomes from numerous health interventions. This study will explore some of the reasons with a focus on the perceptions towards physical activity in the lifestyle prevention of diseases. It will also seek to elicit a range of facilitators and barriers towards improving physical activity lifestyle choices amongst UK BAME adults, including but not limited to those in the individual, structural, environmental and social domains. Furthermore, it will consider the role of ethnicity and culture in the forming of physical activity lifestyle choices. This study was conducted to explore the facilitators and inhibitors of making healthy physical activity lifestyle choices amongst UK BAME adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study will involve 2 phases: a systematic review and a qualitative study phase. The systematic review will be conducted using the PECO (Population, Exposure, Comparison, and Outcome) framework and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) strategy. The qualitative study will be a semi-structured online personal interview of a purposive sample of 12 UK BAME adults residing in Teesside, North East of England (UK). The findings obtained would be useful in designing culturally relevant interventions that seek to improve physical activity lifestyle choices for UK BAME adults and inform future policy guidelines in the UK.

Background: Good posture is characterised by neutral spinal alignment with high physiological and biomechanical efficiency together with low stress and strain. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity and reproducibility of the adult version of the Aristegui questionnaire in university students. Materials and methods: The study was conducted in two parts. The first part assessed content validity of the questionnaire where five experts provided their feedback on the content of the questionnaire. The second part evaluated the reliability of the questionnaire among a convenience sample of 10 university students in a test–retest study. Results: The content validity of the questionnaire was found to be excellent. Twenty-five out of twenty-seven items had an item content validity index higher than 0.79 (appropriate) and the scale content validity index was 0.93 (high). For the reliability, almost perfect agreements were found for nine items, substantial agreement for three questions, moderate agreement for one item and fair agreement for one item. The kappa coefficients ranged from 0.00 (slight) to 1.00 (perfect) for the items on behaviour. Conclusions: The questionnaire was found to be a valid and reliable tool to measure the university students’ knowledge regarding ergonomics and posture and postural behaviour as well as prevalence of musculoskeletal pain.