You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 12, Issue 5
  • Physical activity and sedentary behaviour interventions for people living with both frailty and multiple long-term conditions: a scoping review protocol

Article Text

Article menu
Rehabilitation medicine
Protocol
Physical activity and sedentary behaviour interventions for people living with both frailty and multiple long-term conditions: a scoping review protocol
  1. Hannah M L Young1,2,
  2. Thomas Yates2,
  3. Paddy C Dempsey2,3,4,
  4. Louisa Y Herring1,
  5. Joseph Henson1,2,
  6. Jack Sargeant1,2,
  7. Ffion Curtis5,
  8. Harini Sathanapally5,
  9. Patrick J Highton5,
  10. Michelle Hadjiconstantinou2,
  11. Rebecca Pritchard6,7,
  12. Selina Lock8,
  13. Sally J Singh9,10,
  14. Melanie J Davies1,2
  1. 1 Leicester Diabetes Centre, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK
  2. 2 Diabetes Research Centre, College of Life Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
  3. 3 MRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK
  4. 4 Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  5. 5 NIHR Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK
  6. 6 NIHR Leicester BRC, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK
  7. 7 Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
  8. 8 Library Research Services, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
  9. 9 Department of Respiratory Medicine, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK
  10. 10 Centre for Exercise and Rehabilitation Science, Leicester Biomedical Research Unit, Leicester, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Hannah M L Young; hy162{at}le.ac.uk

Abstract

Introduction The number of people living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs) is predicted to rise. Within this population, those also living with frailty are particularly vulnerable to poor outcomes, including decreased function. Increased physical activity, including exercise, has the potential to improve function in those living with both MLTCs and frailty but, to date, the focus has remained on older people and may not reflect outcomes for the growing number of younger people living with MLTCs and frailty. For those with higher burdens of frailty and MLTCs, physical activity may be challenging. Tailoring physical activity in response to symptoms and periods of ill-health, involving family and reducing sedentary behaviour may be important in this population. How the tailoring of interventions has been approached within existing studies is currently unclear. This scoping review aims to map the available evidence regarding these interventions in people living with both frailty and MLTCs.

Methods and analysis We will use a six-stage process: (1) identifying the research questions; (2) identifying relevant studies (via database searches); (3) selecting studies; (4) charting the data; (5) collating and summarising and (6) stakeholder consultation. Studies will be critically appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

Ethics and dissemination All data in this project will be gathered through database searches. Stakeholder consultation will be undertaken with an established patient and public involvement group. We will disseminate our findings via social media, publication and engagement meetings.

  • rehabilitation medicine
  • sports medicine
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061104

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Strengths and limitations of this study

    • We will identify primary studies that have incorporated sedentary behaviour, physical activity and/or exercise interventions and report how they were modified and tailored to the needs of those with multiple long-term conditions and frailty.

    • The design of the review has been shaped by strong patient and public involvement, and a diverse range of stakeholders will be involved throughout the review.

    • The exclusion of non-English language studies may represent a limitation.

    • There is potential that our review may miss some relevant studies, but an initial search indicates a need to maintain a balance between reviewing a feasible number of studies and ensuring all relevant articles are included.

    Introduction

    Physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour in people with multiple long-term conditions and frailty

    The number of people living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs), defined as the coexistence of two or more chronic conditions, is a growing global health concern.1 The presence of MLTC is associated with a myriad of poor outcomes, including low physical function and a resulting loss of independence and life participation.2–9 Within this population, those also living with frailty, defined as ‘a multidimensional syndrome of decreased physiological reserve leading to increased vulnerability to minor health stressors’, represent a group who are particularly vulnerable to these poor outcomes.10 11 This is, in part, due to a bi-directional relationship between frailty and MLTCs.12 13 Frailty appears to contribute to the onset of MLTCs, while the presence of MLTCs increases the risk of developing frailty.14 15 Evidence suggests that people with MLTCs are at risk of becoming frail earlier.16 17

    Sedentary behaviour (defined as any activity performed in a seated or reclined posture that requires low energy expenditure) and physical inactivity (insufficient amounts of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity) are associated with many long-term conditions.18–20 Increasing physical activity and encouraging people to participate in exercise are often primary targets for intervention, but there is also growing interest in reducing sedentary behaviour.21 Physical inactivity is also common within the context of MLTCs. Approximately 29% of people living with MLTCs are unable to achieve physical activity recommendations of at 150 min of moderate physical activity per week, with levels of inactivity increasing with age.22 In addition, there is an increased prevalence of probable sarcopenia in people with MLTCs.23 Within this group there is a graded relationship between the degree of multimorbidity and sarcopenia, and an independent association between sarcopenia and physical inactivity.24 People with MLTCs who can exercise demonstrate improved outcomes, including increased function, quality of life and life expectancy, indicating that physical activity and exercise may also be important in the management of MLTCs.21 22 25–29

    Sarcopenia, physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour are also modifiable characteristics of the frailty phenotype, and existing evidence suggests that being physically active, including undertaking resistance training, may delay both the onset and progression of frailty and improve outcomes such as physical function.30–35 Increased physical activity is also a cornerstone of obesity management, which has also been associated with both MLTCs and frailty.36–38 Reducing sedentary behaviour and engaging in physical activity and exercise, across the life-course, and when living with MLTCs, is now a major focus of clinical and public health policy.21 32 39–41

    Compared with data from 2015, an 86% increase in the number of people living with two more conditions is predicted by 2035, in those aged over 65 years alone, making effective interventions for this groups increasingly important.42 43 This is underscored by a recent Public Health England report which underlines the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sedentary behaviour and physical activity, particularly on those with MLTCs who were advised to shield. Modelling predicts that the impact of deconditioning and increased fall risk will lead to an estimated cost of £211 million per year to health and social care services.44

    Sedentary behaviour and physical activity and interventions

    Existing systematic reviews indicate that structured exercise can lead to improvements in function, depression and anxiety, but have mixed impacts on quality of life in people living with MLTCs who are not frail.45–47 Similarly, systematic reviews of exercise in people living with frailty suggest that those which include resistance training may improve function but have an unclear impact on quality of life or ability to participate in activities of daily living.48 49 Only one of these reviews, published in 2012, has examined the effectiveness of exercise for people living with both MLTCs and frailty, but focuses specifically on older people (aged over 60 years), and is limited by the interchangeable use of the concepts of disability and frailty.45 This review indicated that exercise had a beneficial effect on mobility and physical functioning in this group, but not on quality of life. Due to the range of intervention types included, the authors were unable to determine the most effective type of programme, and there was little discussion of any adaptations made, except for the phased approach in which supervision was gradually reduced in one study. Contemporary research indicates that the demographics of people living with frailty and MLTCs are changing, with accelerated rates of both phenomena being observed in younger populations, people living with obesity, those with new and emerging health issues such as long-term HIV and early onset type II diabetes.15 36 50 51 An updated review of sedentary behaviour and physical activity interventions for those living with both MLTCs and frailty that includes these groups is warranted.52

    Existing evidence suggests that identifying and targeting non-disease specific issues (eg, symptoms such as pain, fatigue, breathlessness) are important factors associated with increased intervention effectiveness.47 53 This may be important within the context of physical activity and exercise interventions, where uptake is hampered by concerns that symptoms may be aggravated.54 Additionally, adherence in this population is low and the sustained engagement of people with both MLTCs and frailty is disrupted by periods of ill-health, exacerbation of their conditions and increased symptom burden, coupled with lack of guidance and support on safe and effective physical activity in these circumstances.36 55–57

    Guidance on the management of people living with MLTCs and frailty highlights a need to identify and tailor treatment strategies.41 Tailored adaptations to physical activity and exercise may encourage people living with frailty and MLTC to engage and support them to continue as much as they are safely able during periods of ill-health, increased symptomology and functional variability. Such strategies are urgently needed, as those who do complete combined resistance and aerobic exercise programmes appear to benefit from a range of improved outcomes, including improved exercise performance, physical activity levels and health status.55 While recently published guidance supports healthcare professionals to address concerns relating to the exacerbation of common symptoms at the point of initiating physical activity and exercise, they do not address how such interventions might need to be modified, which appears to be important for sustainability.54 Even less is known about the role of interventions to address sedentary behaviour in this population.20 53 58–60 Reducing sedentary behaviour may be a useful adjunct approach for those who lack the capacity or motivation to undertake physical activity and exercise. For these individuals, reducing and breaking up sedentary time may offer a more realistic, acceptable starting point, and a more sustainable segue into exercise.61 62

    Finally, contextual factors, such as family involvement have been cited as key factors which may influence engagement and consequently outcomes.47 Indeed, qualitative research indicates that family members and significant others are important ‘gatekeepers’ to health services and independence in people living with MLTCs and frailty.58 63 This suggests that family involvement may be an important component of an intervention. Evidence also suggests that MLTCs may occur within families beyond parent/child dyads, particularly within people from minority ethnic backgrounds.64–67 These are associated with increased sedentary behaviour, physical inactivity and poor levels of function at the family level.64–69 Therefore, in addition to improving the engagement of those living with MLTCs and frailty, the involvement of family members may help to reduce their risk of developing MLTCs or support them to manage existing LTCs. Indeed, the findings of a recent systematic review suggest that the engagement of carers in ‘dyad’ during structured exercise leads to improvements in both caregiver physical and psychosocial health.70 The involvement of carers in sedentary behaviour and physical activity interventions is less clear. Caregiving requirements are likely to vary by age, and as a result of different clusters of MLTCs, together with frailty, so different caregivers and family members may need to be involved in different ways. Clarifying how carers and family members have been involved in sedentary behaviour, physical activity and exercise interventions for people with MLTCs and frailty may help identify further ways to tailor such interventions and leverage intergenerational support.

    Overall, understanding the characteristics of sedentary behaviour, physical activity and exercise interventions for people living with both MLTCs and frailty is an important first step to identifying safe, scalable and sustainable physical activity interventions which may be beneficial in this population.

    Justification for this review

    Scoping reviews seek to ‘determine the body of literature on a given topic and give a clear indication of the volume of literature available, as well as an overview of its focus’.71 While there is emerging evidence in the context of MLTCs and frailty independently, less is known about the role of sedentary behaviour and physical activity interventions in those living with both. Specifically, we would like to identify primary studies in these conditions, including younger adults where very little research has been conducted. Conducting a scoping review will enable us to draw on the wider literature and begin to develop a programme theory to underpin an intervention targeting this increasing population.72–76 Of relevance to this population is scoping the range of ways in which interventions may be adapted and tailored. An approach that allows diverse evidence to be integrated will provide a more nuanced understanding of this, which may be lost within a systematic review.76 77

    Aim and objectives

    The aim of this review is to map the available evidence on the use of sedentary behaviour, physical activity and exercise interventions in people living with both frailty and MLTCs. The identified evidence will be used to highlight gaps within the existing literature, including a determination of whether there is sufficient evidence in this area to undertake a systematic review. The results of the review will be used to inform the design and development of an intervention for this population.73

    Methods and analysis

    Design

    This scoping review will follow a six-stage process informed by guidance from Arksey and O’Malley,78 and subsequent refinements outlined by Levac et al,79 Colquhorn et al 80 and Daudt et al.81 This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines for scoping reviews.82

    Identifying the research questions

    To achieve the above aims the following questions will be addressed:

    • What are the characteristics of sedentary behaviour, physical activity and exercise interventions that have been used with people living with both frailty and MLTCs?

    • How have carers and relatives been included within the design, development and delivery of these interventions?

    • For each of the above, what approaches appear to contribute to improved engagement and outcomes, particularly physical function?

    Patient and public representatives have been involved in shaping these questions from the outset. They described struggling to maintain physical activity levels during periods of ill-health, compounded by barriers to accessing existing services which could not accommodate their needs, or their variable ability to engage .

    Identifying relevant studies

    Inclusion and exclusion criteria

    All relevant literature will be included, irrespective of the study design used. Studies will be included if the meet the following inclusion criteria (summarised within table 1). These parameters may be refined and adapted if unmanageable volumes of eligible studies are identified following an initial search.78

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Inclusion and exclusion criteria

    Population

    Adults aged 18 years or above, living with both MLTCs and frailty. Within the review, we define MLTCs as the co-existence of two or more chronic conditions (physical or mental) in a single individual.1 Included long-term conditions, which could feasibly be influenced by physical activity, are outlined in table 2. Studies where the presence of MLTCs could be assumed based solely on participants’ age or circumstances (eg, resident of a nursing home) will be excluded.53 However, given the relatively recent use of MLTCs as a term, we will include studies where the characteristics of the sample indicate that the majority (over 50%) are living with MLTCs (eg, Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, counts of conditions). Similar approaches have been adopted within previous reviews of exercise and MLTCs.46

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Conditions included within the review

    We define frailty as ‘a multidimensional syndrome of decreased physiological reserve leading to increased vulnerability to minor health stressors’.10 Studies using a validated frailty measure (eg, Fried Frailty Phenotype, Clinical Frailty Scale, Frailty Index, Electronic Frailty Index) will be prioritised. Considering that frailty in younger people with MLTCs has only recently begun to be recognised, we will also include studies using proxy indicators of frailty (outlined within table 3).17 83–88 Studies which use other measures and cite supporting evidence to suggest association with frailty will also be included. Accepting that these instruments have only moderate specificity for the identification of frailty, and have yet to be validated within younger frail populations, they may be more appropriate to, and more commonly used in, younger groups.17 85 Studies including participants described as frail with no quantitative measurement of this will be excluded.

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Functional measures which are recognised proxy measures of frailty, and published cut-offs indicative of frailty

    Studies which target only carers will be included, providing they are delivering unpaid care for people with the above inclusion criteria and the interventions focus on sedentary behaviour, physical activity or exercise. Carer involvement is not included as a specific inclusion criterion, as we do not want to exclude relevant studies which did not include carers.

    Concept

    We define physical activity as ‘people moving, acting and performing within culturally specific spaces and contexts, and influenced by a unique array of interests, emotions, ideas, instructions and relationships’.89 Within this, we include exercise interventions as ‘planned, structured and repetitive bodily movement with the objective of improving or maintaining physical fitness’.90 Multicomponent interventions, including rehabilitation programmes, will also be eligible, provided they meet the other inclusion criteria described. We will also include interventions which target sedentary behaviour, as previously defined.18 Studies examining the acute effects of physical activity or sedentary behaviour interventions are excluded, as we are interested in the characteristics of programmes which are designed to influence long-term outcomes such as physical function. An intervention duration of 1 week distinguishes acute interventions from non-acute behavioural interventions in free-living conditions.91

    Context/Settings

    Studies from all settings will be eligible, including those in community, workplace, residential and hospital settings.

    Searches will be limited to the year 2000 onwards to ensure they are relevant to current practice, and because the term ‘frailty’ as a syndrome of increased vulnerability is not well recognised prior to this.92 Non-English language studies will be excluded. Any study design examining interventions or intervention content will be eligible for inclusion. The reference lists of relevant reviews will be used to identify other eligible papers not already included within the review. This will allow us to exclude papers which do not meet the eligibility criteria, and to avoid overstating the results of papers already included as primary sources.

    Information sources

    We will search for studies using the following databases and trials registries:

    • For systematic reviews: Cochrane; PROSPERO; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects.

    • For published research: MEDLINE; EMBASE; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL); Web of Science; Sports Discus; PsycINFO; Pedro; Allied and Complementary Medicine; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Scopus.

    • For grey literature: internet searching (eg, Google Scholar), BIOSIS previews, Open Grey and the Index to Scientific and Technical Proceedings.

    Relevant ongoing clinical trials will be included if they provide sufficient information. The following databases will be searched for ongoing trials: CENTRAL; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

    Meeting abstracts will not be included as they are unlikely to include the level of information required. Additional relevant literature will be identified via handsearching the references of included papers, drawing on forward and backward citation tracking and electronic ‘cited by’ searches using Google Scholar. Where included trials reference linked protocol papers or qualitative research, these will be included. Searches will be updated prior to publication.

    Searches

    Search terms used are outlined in online supplemental appendix 1. This strategy has been developed by a health information specialist and the review team for MEDLINE and will be translated for other databases.

    Supplemental material

    Searches will be executed by HMLY with support from the information specialist where required. Initially MEDLINE (PubMed) and CINAHL will be searched to pilot the strategy. Key words from the titles, abstracts and index terms used to describe the retrieved papers will be reviewed. The research team will then meet to discuss any refinements before further searches are conducted.79 An initial search for terms relating to frailty/function OR terms relating multimorbidity AND terms relating to physical activity/sedentary behaviour/exercise yielded an unmanageable amount of data. Consequently, the search was adjusted to frailty/function terms AND multimorbidity terms AND physical activity/sedentary behaviour/exercise terms.

    Selection of evidence

    Following de-duplication, the remaining studies will be independently screened for eligibility by two reviewers, using the inclusion criteria outlined above. A systematic approach will be facilitated by reference and review management software (EndNote V.X9 and Covidence).79 81 First, titles and abstracts will be screened to remove ineligible records. Following this, at least two reviewers will screen the remaining full-text copies. At this stage, demographic and clinical characteristics of the studies will be assessed to determine if they meet the criteria for MLTCs and frailty. Any discrepancies will be resolved through discussion and the inclusion of an additional reviewer if required. Authors will be contacted if, after full-text screening, it is still unclear whether to include/exclude an article. Authors will be contacted via email, with a further follow-up email 2 weeks later. The review team will meet regularly throughout each stage.

    Data charting

    A standardised data charting form will be used to comprehensively extract data from the included studies. The form will be developed by the review team based on the key objectives of the review. It will be piloted by two reviewers on five studies to ensure all relevant information is extracted. Any changes to the form, and the rationale for these, will be recorded.

    Microsoft Excel will be used to manage the extracted data. Where key information is missing from the full texts, authors will be contacted for additional information. The extraction of intervention characteristics, including how they are tailored and adapted will be guided by the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT).93 94 For data relating to study methodology, relevant reporting guidelines will be used to guide the data extracted for each study type.76 Key data to be extracted is outlined within table 4. This list is not exhaustive, and data extracted may be subject to refinement.76

    View this table:
    Table 4

    Key data to be extracted within the review

    To differentiate between physical activity and sedentary behaviour interventions, we will use the approach described by Hadgraft et al.91 Finally, we will record the outcomes used to determine the interventions effectiveness, including outcomes relating to carer health and well-being, and the effects of the intervention on physical function and other relevant outcomes (particularly physical activity, sedentary behaviours and measures of quality of life). Key findings that relate to the scoping review questions will also be recorded alongside an assessment of the quality of the study.

    Critical appraisal

    Critical appraisal of the included studies will provide information on the quality of the available evidence. The identification of lower quality research will strengthen the identification of gaps within the existing literature.79 Studies will not be excluded based on quality.

    We will assess the quality of the included studies using the using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), which has previously been used in scoping reviews.95–97 The MMAT is a brief, but reliable, critical appraisal tool which provides a single method for assessing the quality of a range of qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods study designs.76 98 99 Two reviewers will be familiarised with the tool and devise a strategy for applying the tool in a systematic manner.98 99 Following this, they will undertake the assessment independently, with recourse to additional members of the team where required.99 A detailed presentation of the ratings of each included criterion will be reported.100

    Synthesis and reporting

    We plan to use a convergent synthesis design, based on each of the research questions identified.101 Qualitative and quantitative data will be summarised using a narrative approach, supplemented by descriptive statistics, tables and figures as appropriate. Following this, qualitative and quantitative data relating to each question will be integrated using mixed-methods joint displays.101 We anticipate that joint displays will be organised according to the domains outlined within the TIDieR and CERT checklists.93 94 Within the joint displays, consideration will also be given to the effectiveness of the identified interventions and the quality of the studies. This will enable us to better identify those interventions or components which appear to lead to more favourable outcomes, and to assess areas of ongoing uncertainty. The results of this review will be reported in accordance with PRISMA guidance.82 This proposed synthesis plan will be further refined towards the end of the review.76

    Stakeholder consultation

    The final stage will involve discussing the review results with two stakeholder groups. The first will comprise approximately six to eight people living with both frailty and at least two co-existing long-term conditions from those included within this review, alongside their carers/family members. These individuals are already engaged as members of a patient and public involvement (PPI) group for a study related to this review. We have already taken steps to ensure that we are actively considering equality, diversity and inclusion and will continue to ensure the composition of this group is broadly representative of the population of interest.

    The second group will comprise approximately six to eight exercise and healthcare professionals, and researchers with expertise in intervention development. These individuals are already engaged as collaborators for a study related to this review or will be approached via existing links with local hospital and community health and research networks. We will include broad representation from professionals and academics with an interest in the management of MLTC and frailty alongside expertise in the specialty areas of interest in the review (respiratory, musculoskeletal, mental health, metabolic and infectious diseases, cardiology, neurology oncology and geriatrics).

    The two groups will meet separately to mitigate any issues relating to power differentials, and to allow both groups to discuss their views openly. A single meeting for each group will be facilitated by HMLY. Meetings will not be audio-recorded but a co-facilitator will take notes and observe group interactions. Meetings will be held face-to-face or virtually as circumstances allow. Given the heavy burden of healthcare and the increased potential for periods of illness, where lay stakeholders cannot attend, they will be consulted individually. Face-to-face meetings will be held in accessible locations. Materials will be adapted for the needs of those with sensory impairments as required. Lay members will be rewarded and recognised for their time and expertise in accordance with current guidance.102

    The objective of the meetings will be to understand stakeholders’ perspectives regarding any potential evidence informed interventions identified.73 We will present a summary of our findings to inform discussions. They will be asked to consider how well any identified interventions fit the proposed context, and where and how they may need further adaptation.74 Areas where there are ongoing uncertainties will be flagged. Stakeholders will also be asked for their views on areas which have not been addressed within the current evidence base which may be important to them. Following the meetings, a plan for future development and/or adaptation work will be developed and shared with the whole group for further comment. Feedback from the stakeholder consultation will be integrated with the findings of the review and described in the final report.

    Patient and public involvement

    In addition to shaping the research questions, PPI group members have provided feedback on how to make stakeholder meetings inclusive and accessible. They have also advised on the dissemination strategy adopted.

    Ethics and dissemination

    All data in this project will be gathered through database searches. Ethical approval to publish information from the stakeholder consultation process will be sought from the University of Leicester Internal Review Board for the stakeholder consultation stage of this review.

    We will disseminate our findings at relevant academic and clinical meetings and by publishing them in an academic journal within the field. Results will also be disseminated to people living with both frailty and MLTC, and carers via the Lifestyle and Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Units involvement forum, relevant local and national patient charities, and our social media platforms.

    Summary

    The numbers of people living with MLTC are predicted to rise, and within this population those also living with frailty are particularly vulnerable to poor outcomes such as decreased function and independence. Sedentary behaviour, physical activity and exercise interventions form an integral part of chronic disease and frailty management and may also be important for those living with both MLTC and frailty. Existing systematic reviews suggest that exercise has the potential to improve function in those living with both MLTCs and frailty, but to date the focus has remained on older people, which may not reflect those living with MLTC, who become frail at a younger age. Tailoring the intervention in response to symptoms and periods of ill-health and involving family members appears to be important in this population, but how this has been approached within existing studies is currently unknown. Additionally, the role of broader interventions which address sedentary behaviour are unclear. This scoping review aims to map the available evidence on the use of sedentary behaviour, physical activity and exercise interventions in people living with frailty and MLTCs. The results will inform the design of a tailored intervention and highlight gaps, directing future research.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    Ethics approval

    Not applicable.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. The Academy of Medical Sciences
      . Multimorbidity: a priority for global health research, 2018. Available: https://acmedsci.ac.uk/file-download/82222577 [Accessed 20th Dec 2021].
    2. ↵
      2. Williams JS ,
      3. Egede LE
      . The association between multimorbidity and quality of life, health status and functional disability. Am J Med Sci 2016;352:45–52.doi:10.1016/j.amjms.2016.03.004 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27432034
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    3. ↵
      2. Jacob ME ,
      3. Ni P ,
      4. Driver J , et al
      . Burden and patterns of multimorbidity: impact on disablement in older adults. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2020;99:359.doi:10.1097/PHM.0000000000001388 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32301768
      OpenUrlPubMed
    4. ↵
      2. Marengoni A ,
      3. Angleman S ,
      4. Fratiglioni L
      . Prevalence of disability according to multimorbidity and disease clustering: a population-based study. J Comorb 2011;1:11–18.doi:10.15256/joc.2011.1.3 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29090132
      OpenUrlPubMed
    5. ↵
      2. Nicholson K ,
      3. Griffith LE ,
      4. Sohel N , et al
      . Examining early and late onset of multimorbidity in the Canadian longitudinal study on aging. J Am Geriatr Soc 2021;69:1579–91.doi:10.1111/jgs.17096 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33730382
      OpenUrlPubMed
    6. ↵
      2. Quiñones AR ,
      3. Markwardt S ,
      4. Botoseneanu A
      . Multimorbidity combinations and disability in older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2016;71:823–30.doi:10.1093/gerona/glw035 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26968451
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    7. ↵
      2. Read JR ,
      3. Sharpe L ,
      4. Modini M , et al
      . Multimorbidity and depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord 2017;221:36–46.doi:10.1016/j.jad.2017.06.009 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28628766
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    8. ↵
      2. Stafford MSA ,
      3. Thorlby R ,
      4. Fisher R
      . Briefing: understanding the health care needs of people with multiple health conditions, 2017. Available: file:///C:/Users/Hannah/Downloads/Understanding%20the%20health%20care%20needs%20of%20people%20with%20multiple%20health%20conditions%20(1).pdf [Accessed 10 Dec 2021].
    9. ↵
      2. Sibley KM ,
      3. Voth J ,
      4. Munce SE , et al
      . Chronic disease and falls in community-dwelling Canadians over 65 years old: a population-based study exploring associations with number and pattern of chronic conditions. BMC Geriatr 2014;14:1–11.doi:10.1186/1471-2318-14-22
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      2. Clegg A ,
      3. Young J ,
      4. Iliffe S , et al
      . Frailty in elderly people. Lancet 2013;381:752–62.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62167-9 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23395245
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    11. ↵
      2. Aarts S ,
      3. Patel KV ,
      4. Garcia ME , et al
      . Co-Presence of multimorbidity and disability with frailty: an examination of heterogeneity in the frail older population. J Frailty Aging 2015;4:131.doi:10.14283/jfa.2015.45 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27030941
      OpenUrlPubMed
    12. ↵
      2. Villacampa-Fernández P ,
      3. Navarro-Pardo E ,
      4. Tarín JJ , et al
      . Frailty and multimorbidity: two related yet different concepts. Maturitas 2017;95:31–5.doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2016.10.008 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27889050
      OpenUrlPubMed
    13. ↵
      2. Espinoza SE ,
      3. Quiben M ,
      4. Hazuda HP
      . Distinguishing comorbidity, disability, and frailty. Curr Geriatr Rep 2018;7:201–9.doi:10.1007/s13670-018-0254-0 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30984516
      OpenUrlPubMed
    14. ↵
      2. Aprahamian I ,
      3. Mamoni RL ,
      4. Cervigne NK , et al
      . Design and protocol of the multimorbidity and mental health cohort study in frailty and aging (MiMiCS-FRAIL): unraveling the clinical and molecular associations between frailty, somatic disease burden and late life depression. BMC Psychiatry 2020;20:1–11.doi:10.1186/s12888-020-02963-9
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    15. ↵
      2. Hanlon P ,
      3. Nicholl BI ,
      4. Jani BD , et al
      . Frailty and pre-frailty in middle-aged and older adults and its association with multimorbidity and mortality: a prospective analysis of 493 737 UK Biobank participants. Lancet Public Health 2018;3:e323–32.doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(18)30091-4
      OpenUrlPubMed
    16. ↵
      2. Whitty CJM ,
      3. MacEwen C ,
      4. Goddard A , et al
      . Rising to the challenge of multimorbidity. British Medical Journal Publishing Group, 2020: l6964.doi:10.1136/bmj.l6964
    17. ↵
      2. Spiers GF ,
      3. Kunonga TP ,
      4. Hall A , et al
      . Measuring frailty in younger populations: a rapid review of evidence. BMJ Open 2021;11:e047051.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047051 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33753447
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    18. ↵
      2. Tremblay MS ,
      3. Aubert S ,
      4. Barnes JD , et al
      . Sedentary behavior research network (SBRN) – terminology consensus project process and outcome. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2017;14:1–17.doi:10.1186/s12966-017-0525-8
      OpenUrlPubMed
    19. ↵
      2. Lee W-C ,
      3. Ory MG
      . The engagement in physical activity for middle-aged and older adults with multiple chronic conditions: findings from a community health assessment. J Aging Res 2013;2013:1–8.doi:10.1155/2013/152868 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24089637
      OpenUrlPubMed
    20. ↵
      2. Dempsey PC ,
      3. Biddle SJH ,
      4. Buman MP , et al
      . New global guidelines on sedentary behaviour and health for adults: broadening the behavioural targets. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2020;17:1–12.doi:10.1186/s12966-020-01044-0
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    21. ↵
      2. Dempsey PC ,
      3. Friedenreich CM ,
      4. Leitzmann MF , et al
      . Global public health guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behavior for people living with chronic conditions: a call to action. J Phys Act Health 2021;18:76–85.doi:10.1123/jpah.2020-0525 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33276323
      OpenUrlPubMed
    22. ↵
      2. Vancampfort D ,
      3. Koyanagi A ,
      4. Ward PB , et al
      . Chronic physical conditions, multimorbidity and physical activity across 46 low- and middle-income countries. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2017;14:1–13.doi:10.1186/s12966-017-0463-5
      OpenUrlPubMed
    23. ↵
      2. Dodds RM ,
      3. Granic A ,
      4. Robinson SM , et al
      . Sarcopenia, long‐term conditions, and multimorbidity: findings from UK Biobank participants. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2020;11:62–8.doi:10.1002/jcsm.12503
      OpenUrl
    24. ↵
      2. Hurst C ,
      3. Murray JC ,
      4. Granic A , et al
      . Long-term conditions, multimorbidity, lifestyle factors and change in grip strength over 9 years of follow-up: Findings from 44,315 UK biobank participants. Age Ageing 2021;50:2222–9.doi:10.1093/ageing/afab195
      OpenUrl
    25. ↵
      2. Cassidy S ,
      3. Fuller H ,
      4. Chau J , et al
      . Accelerometer-derived physical activity in those with cardio-metabolic disease compared to healthy adults: a UK Biobank study of 52,556 participants. Acta Diabetol 2018;55:975–9.doi:10.1007/s00592-018-1161-8 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29808390
      OpenUrlPubMed
    26. ↵
      2. Steeves JA ,
      3. Shiroma EJ ,
      4. Conger SA , et al
      . Physical activity patterns and multimorbidity burden of older adults with different levels of functional status: NHANES 2003-2006. Disabil Health J 2019;12:495–502.doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2019.02.005 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30871954
      OpenUrlPubMed
    27. ↵
      2. Autenrieth CS ,
      3. Kirchberger I ,
      4. Heier M , et al
      . Physical activity is inversely associated with multimorbidity in elderly men: results from the KORA-Age Augsburg study. Prev Med 2013;57:17–19.doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.02.014 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23485795
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    28. ↵
      2. Martinez-Gomez D ,
      3. Guallar-Castillon P ,
      4. Garcia-Esquinas E , et al
      . Physical activity and the effect of multimorbidity on all-cause mortality in older adults. Mayo Clin Proc 2017;92:376–82.doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.12.004 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28160946
      OpenUrlPubMed
    29. ↵
      2. Chudasama YV ,
      3. Khunti KK ,
      4. Zaccardi F , et al
      . Physical activity, multimorbidity, and life expectancy: a UK Biobank longitudinal study. BMC Med 2019;17:108.doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1339-0 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31186007
      OpenUrlPubMed
    30. ↵
      2. Cruz-Jentoft AJ ,
      3. Sayer AA
      . Sarcopenia. Lancet 2019;393:2636–46.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31138-9 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31171417
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    31. ↵
      2. Fried LP ,
      3. Tangen CM ,
      4. Walston J , et al
      . Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001;56:M146–57.doi:10.1093/gerona/56.3.m146 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11253156
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    32. ↵
      1. World Health Organisation
      . Global action plan on physical activity 2018–2030: more active people for a healthier world, 2018.
    33. ↵
      2. Rogers NT ,
      3. Marshall A ,
      4. Roberts CH , et al
      . Physical activity and trajectories of frailty among older adults: evidence from the English longitudinal study of ageing. PLoS One 2017;12:e0170878.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170878 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28152084
      OpenUrlPubMed
    34. ↵
      2. Peterson MJ ,
      3. Giuliani C ,
      4. Morey MC , et al
      . Physical activity as a preventative factor for frailty: the health, aging, and body composition study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2009;64:61–8.doi:10.1093/gerona/gln001 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19164276
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    35. ↵
      2. da Silva Coqueiro R ,
      3. de Queiroz BM ,
      4. Oliveira DS , et al
      . Cross-Sectional relationships between sedentary behavior and frailty in older adults. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2017;57:825–30.doi:10.23736/S0022-4707.16.06289-7 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26959875
      OpenUrlPubMed
    36. ↵
      2. Yuan L ,
      3. Chang M ,
      4. Wang J
      . Abdominal obesity, body mass index and the risk of frailty in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing 2021;50:1118–28.doi:10.1093/ageing/afab039 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33693472
      OpenUrlPubMed
    37. ↵
      2. Lu Y ,
      3. Liu S ,
      4. Qiao Y , et al
      . Waist-to-height ratio, waist circumference, body mass index, waist divided by height0.5 and the risk of cardiometabolic multimorbidity: A national longitudinal cohort study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2021;31:2644–51.doi:10.1016/j.numecd.2021.05.026 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34226121
      OpenUrlPubMed
    38. ↵
      2. Pollack LM ,
      3. Wang M ,
      4. Leung MYM , et al
      . Obesity-Related multimorbidity and risk of cardiovascular disease in the middle-aged population in the United States. Prev Med 2020;139:106225.doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106225 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32768511
      OpenUrlPubMed
    39. ↵
      2. Ford JC ,
      3. Ford JA
      . Multimorbidity: will it stand the test of time? Age Ageing 2018;47:6–8.doi:10.1093/ageing/afx159 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29036276
      OpenUrlPubMed
    40. ↵
      1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
      . Dementia, disability and frailty in later life – mid life approaches to delay or prevent onset NICE guideline [NG16], 2015. Available: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng16 [Accessed 20th Dec 2021].
    41. ↵
      1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
      . Multimorbidity: clinical assessment and management NICE guideline [NG56], 2016. Available: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng56 [Accessed 20th Dec 2021].
    42. ↵
      2. Kingston A ,
      3. Robinson L ,
      4. Booth H , et al
      . Projections of multi-morbidity in the older population in England to 2035: estimates from the population ageing and care simulation (PACSim) model. Age Ageing 2018;47:374–80.doi:10.1093/ageing/afx201 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29370339
      OpenUrlPubMed
    43. ↵
      2. Frost R ,
      3. Rait G ,
      4. Wheatley A , et al
      . What works in managing complex conditions in older people in primary and community care? A state-of-the-art review. Health Soc Care Community 2020;28:1915–27.doi:10.1111/hsc.13085 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32671922
      OpenUrlPubMed
    44. ↵
      1. Public Health England
      . Wider impacts of COVID-19 on physical activity, deconditioning and falls in older adults, 2021. Available: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1010501/HEMT_Wider_Impacts_Falls.pdf [Accessed 29th Oct 2021].
    45. ↵
      2. de Vries NM ,
      3. van Ravensberg CD ,
      4. Hobbelen JSM , et al
      . Effects of physical exercise therapy on mobility, physical functioning, physical activity and quality of life in community-dwelling older adults with impaired mobility, physical disability and/or multi-morbidity: a meta-analysis. Ageing Res Rev 2012;11:136–49.doi:10.1016/j.arr.2011.11.002 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22101330
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    46. ↵
      2. Bricca A ,
      3. Harris LK ,
      4. Jäger M , et al
      . Benefits and harms of exercise therapy in people with multimorbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Ageing Res Rev 2020;63:101166.doi:10.1016/j.arr.2020.101166 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32896665
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    47. ↵
      2. Crowe M ,
      3. Jordan J ,
      4. Burrell B , et al
      . Clinical effectiveness of transdiagnostic health management interventions for older people with multimorbidity: a quantitative systematic review. J Adv Nurs 2016;72:2315–29.doi:10.1111/jan.13011 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27230606
      OpenUrlPubMed
    48. ↵
      2. Talar K ,
      3. Hernández-Belmonte A ,
      4. Vetrovsky T , et al
      . Benefits of resistance training in early and late stages of frailty and sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. J Clin Med 2021;10:1630.doi:10.3390/jcm10081630 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33921356
      OpenUrlPubMed
    49. ↵
      2. Campbell E ,
      3. Petermann-Rocha F ,
      4. Welsh P , et al
      . The effect of exercise on quality of life and activities of daily life in frail older adults: a systematic review of randomised control trials. Exp Gerontol 2021;147:111287.doi:10.1016/j.exger.2021.111287 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33609689
      OpenUrlPubMed
    50. ↵
      2. Tuttle LJ ,
      3. Bittel DC ,
      4. Bittel AJ , et al
      . Early-Onset physical frailty in adults with diabesity and peripheral neuropathy. Can J Diabetes 2018;42:478–83.doi:10.1016/j.jcjd.2017.12.001 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29567079
      OpenUrlPubMed
    51. ↵
      2. Gebregziabher M ,
      3. Ward RC ,
      4. Taber DJ , et al
      . Ethnic and geographic variations in multimorbidty: evidence from three large cohorts. Soc Sci Med 2018;211:198–206.doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.06.020 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29960171
      OpenUrlPubMed
    52. ↵
      2. Parker SG ,
      3. Corner L ,
      4. Laing K , et al
      . Priorities for research in multiple conditions in later life (multi-morbidity): findings from a James Lind alliance priority setting partnership. Age Ageing 2019;48:401–6.doi:10.1093/ageing/afz014 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30892604
      OpenUrlPubMed
    53. ↵
      2. Smith SM ,
      3. Wallace E ,
      4. O'Dowd T , et al
      . Interventions for improving outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021;1:CD006560.doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01817-z pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33448337
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    54. ↵
      2. Reid H ,
      3. Ridout AJ ,
      4. Tomaz SA , et al
      . Benefits outweigh the risks: a consensus statement on the risks of physical activity for people living with long-term conditions. Br J Sports Med 2022;56:427–38.doi:10.1136/bjsports-2021-104281 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34649919
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    55. ↵
      2. Maddocks M ,
      3. Kon SSC ,
      4. Canavan JL , et al
      . Physical frailty and pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD: a prospective cohort study. Thorax 2016;71:988–95.doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208460 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27293209
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    56. ↵
      2. Young HML ,
      3. March DS ,
      4. Highton PJ , et al
      . Exercise for people living with frailty and receiving haemodialysis: a mixed-methods randomised controlled feasibility study. BMJ Open 2020;10:e041227.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041227 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33148767
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    57. ↵
      2. Blackstock FC ,
      3. ZuWallack R ,
      4. Nici L , et al
      . Why Don't Our Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Listen to Us? The Enigma of Nonadherence. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2016;13:317–23.doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.201509-600PS pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26882499
      OpenUrlPubMed
    58. ↵
      2. Mañas A ,
      3. del Pozo-Cruz B ,
      4. García-García FJ , et al
      . Role of objectively measured sedentary behaviour in physical performance, frailty and mortality among older adults: a short systematic review. Eur J Sport Sci 2017;17:940–53.doi:10.1080/17461391.2017.1327983
      OpenUrl
    59. ↵
      2. Prince SA ,
      3. Saunders TJ ,
      4. Gresty K , et al
      . A comparison of the effectiveness of physical activity and sedentary behaviour interventions in reducing sedentary time in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. Obes Rev 2014;15:905–19.doi:10.1111/obr.12215 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25112481
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    60. ↵
      2. Kehler DS ,
      3. Theou O
      . The impact of physical activity and sedentary behaviors on frailty levels. Mech Ageing Dev 2019;180:29–41.doi:10.1016/j.mad.2019.03.004
      OpenUrl
    61. ↵
      2. Dogra S ,
      3. Copeland JL ,
      4. Altenburg TM , et al
      . Start with reducing sedentary behavior: a stepwise approach to physical activity counseling in clinical practice. Patient Educ Couns 2021. doi:doi:10.1016/j.pec.2021.09.019. [Epub ahead of print: 13 Sep 2021].doi:10.1016/j.pec.2021.09.019 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34556383
      OpenUrlPubMed
    62. ↵
      2. Lerma NL ,
      3. Cho CC ,
      4. Swartz AM , et al
      . Isotemporal substitution of sedentary behavior and physical activity on function. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2018;50:792–800.doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000001491 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29140899
      OpenUrlPubMed
    63. ↵
      2. young hannah ,
      3. Goodliffe S ,
      4. Helen C E , et al
      . SP418Frailty and falls: a qualitative study exploring the experiences of patients living with end-stage renal disease and haemodialysis. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2019;34.doi:10.1093/ndt/gfz103.SP418
    64. ↵
      2. Ellis KR ,
      3. Hecht HK ,
      4. Young TL , et al
      . Chronic disease among African American families: a systematic scoping review. Prev Chronic Dis 2020;17:E167.doi:10.5888/pcd17.190431 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33416471
      OpenUrlPubMed
    65. ↵
      2. Singh K ,
      3. Patel SA ,
      4. Biswas S , et al
      . Multimorbidity in South Asian adults: prevalence, risk factors and mortality. J Public Health 2019;41:80–9.doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdy017 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29425313
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    66. ↵
      2. Polenick CA ,
      3. Birditt KS ,
      4. Turkelson A , et al
      . Chronic condition discordance and physical activity among midlife and older couples. Health Psychol 2021;40:11–20.doi:10.1037/hea0001040 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33370150
      OpenUrlPubMed
    67. ↵
      2. Polenick CA ,
      3. Birditt KS ,
      4. Turkelson A , et al
      . Individual-Level and couple-level discordant chronic conditions: longitudinal links to functional disability. Ann Behav Med 2020;54:455–69.doi:10.1093/abm/kaz061
      OpenUrl
    68. ↵
      2. Gomes GAdeO ,
      3. Luchesi BM ,
      4. Gratão ACM , et al
      . Prevalence of physical inactivity and associated factors among older caregivers of older adults. J Aging Health 2019;31:793–813.doi:10.1177/0898264318756422 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29665716
      OpenUrlPubMed
    69. ↵
      2. Greaney ML ,
      3. Kunicki ZJ ,
      4. Drohan MM , et al
      . Self-Reported changes in physical activity, sedentary behavior, and screen time among informal caregivers during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Public Health 2021;21:1–9.doi:10.1186/s12889-021-11294-7
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    70. ↵
      2. Doyle KL ,
      3. Toepfer M ,
      4. Bradfield AF , et al
      . Systematic review of exercise for Caregiver-Care recipient dyads: what is best for spousal Caregivers-Exercising together or not at all? Gerontologist 2021;61:e283–301.doi:10.1093/geront/gnaa043 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32614050
      OpenUrlPubMed
    71. ↵
      2. Munn Z ,
      3. Peters MDJ ,
      4. Stern C , et al
      . Systematic review or scoping review? guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018;18:1–7.doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    72. ↵
      2. O'Cathain A ,
      3. Croot L ,
      4. Duncan E , et al
      . Guidance on how to develop complex interventions to improve health and healthcare. BMJ Open 2019;9:e029954.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029954 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31420394
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    73. ↵
      2. O'Cathain A ,
      3. Croot L ,
      4. Sworn K , et al
      . Taxonomy of approaches to developing interventions to improve health: a systematic methods overview. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2019;5:41.doi:10.1186/s40814-019-0425-6 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30923626
      OpenUrlPubMed
    74. ↵
      2. Moore G ,
      3. Campbell M ,
      4. Copeland L , et al
      . Adapting interventions to new contexts-the adapt guidance. BMJ 2021;374:n1679.doi:10.1136/bmj.n1679 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34344699
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    75. ↵
      2. Skivington K ,
      3. Matthews L ,
      4. Simpson SA , et al
      . A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2021;374:n2061.doi:10.1136/bmj.n2061 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34593508
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    76. ↵
      2. Noyes J ,
      3. Booth A ,
      4. Moore G , et al
      . Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: Clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Glob Health 2019;4:e000893.doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000893 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30775016
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    77. ↵
      2. Petticrew M ,
      3. Rehfuess E ,
      4. Noyes J , et al
      . Synthesizing evidence on complex interventions: how meta-analytical, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches can contribute. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:1230–43.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.06.005 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23953082
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    78. ↵
      2. Arksey H ,
      3. O'Malley L
      . Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005;8:19–32.doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    79. ↵
      2. Levac D ,
      3. Colquhoun H ,
      4. O'Brien KK
      . Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci 2010;5:69.doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20854677
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    80. ↵
      2. Colquhoun HL ,
      3. Levac D ,
      4. O'Brien KK , et al
      . Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:1291–4.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25034198
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    81. ↵
      2. Daudt HML ,
      3. van Mossel C ,
      4. Scott SJ
      . Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013;13:1–9.doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-48
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    82. ↵
      2. Tricco AC ,
      3. Lillie E ,
      4. Zarin W , et al
      . PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:467–73.doi:10.7326/M18-0850 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30178033
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    83. ↵
      2. Bouillon K ,
      3. Kivimaki M ,
      4. Hamer M , et al
      . Measures of frailty in population-based studies: an overview. BMC Geriatr 2013;13:1–11.doi:10.1186/1471-2318-13-64
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    84. ↵
      2. de Vries NM ,
      3. Staal JB ,
      4. van Ravensberg CD , et al
      . Outcome instruments to measure frailty: a systematic review. Ageing Res Rev 2011;10:104–14.doi:10.1016/j.arr.2010.09.001 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20850567
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    85. ↵
      1. British Geriatrics Society
      . Fit for frailty, 2014. Available: https://www.bgs.org.uk/resources/recognising-frailty [Accessed 17th Nov 2021].
    86. ↵
      2. Studenski S ,
      3. Perera S ,
      4. Patel K , et al
      . Gait speed and survival in older adults. JAMA 2011;305:50–8.doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1923 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21205966
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    87. ↵
      2. Makizako H ,
      3. Shimada H ,
      4. Doi T , et al
      . Predictive Cutoff Values of the Five-Times Sit-to-Stand Test and the Timed "Up & Go" Test for Disability Incidence in Older People Dwelling in the Community. Phys Ther 2017;97:417–24.doi:10.2522/ptj.20150665 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28371914
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    88. ↵
      2. Bahat G ,
      3. Ozkok S ,
      4. Kilic C , et al
      . SARC-F questionnaire detects frailty in older adults. J Nutr Health Aging 2021;25:448–53.doi:10.1007/s12603-020-1543-9
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    89. ↵
      2. Piggin J
      . What is physical activity? A holistic definition for teachers, researchers and policy makers. Front Sports Act Living 2020;2:72.doi:10.3389/fspor.2020.00072 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33345063
      OpenUrlPubMed
    90. ↵
      2. Caspersen CJ ,
      3. Powell KE ,
      4. Christenson GM
      . Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Rep 1985;100:126.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3920711
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    91. ↵
      2. Hadgraft NT ,
      3. Winkler E ,
      4. Climie RE , et al
      . Effects of sedentary behaviour interventions on biomarkers of cardiometabolic risk in adults: systematic review with meta-analyses. Br J Sports Med 2021;55:144–54.doi:10.1136/bjsports-2019-101154
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    92. ↵
      2. Rockwood K ,
      3. Howlett SE
      . Fifteen years of progress in understanding frailty and health in aging. BMC Med 2018;16:220.doi:10.1186/s12916-018-1223-3 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30477486
      OpenUrlPubMed
    93. ↵
      2. Hoffmann TC ,
      3. Glasziou PP ,
      4. Boutron I , et al
      . Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014;348:g1687.doi:10.1136/bmj.g1687
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    94. ↵
      2. Slade SC ,
      3. Dionne CE ,
      4. Underwood M , et al
      . Consensus on exercise reporting template (CERT): explanation and elaboration statement. Br J Sports Med 2016;50:1428–37.doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096651
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    95. ↵
      2. Puts MTE ,
      3. Toubasi S ,
      4. Andrew MK , et al
      . Interventions to prevent or reduce the level of frailty in community-dwelling older adults: a scoping review of the literature and international policies. Age Ageing 2017;46:383–92.doi:10.1093/ageing/afw247 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28064173
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    96. ↵
      2. Pluye P ,
      3. Gagnon M-P ,
      4. Griffiths F , et al
      . A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in mixed studies reviews. Int J Nurs Stud 2009;46:529–46.doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.01.009 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19233357
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    97. ↵
      2. Pace R ,
      3. Pluye P ,
      4. Bartlett G , et al
      . Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. Int J Nurs Stud 2012;49:47–53.doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.07.002 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21835406
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    98. ↵
      2. Souto RQ ,
      3. Khanassov V ,
      4. Hong QN , et al
      . Systematic mixed studies reviews: updating results on the reliability and efficiency of the mixed methods appraisal tool. Int J Nurs Stud 2015;52:500–1.doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.08.010 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25241931
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    99. ↵
      2. Hong QN ,
      3. Gonzalez-Reyes A ,
      4. Pluye P
      . Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT). J Eval Clin Pract 2018;24:459–67.doi:10.1111/jep.12884 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29464873
      OpenUrlPubMed
    100. ↵
      2. Hong QN ,
      3. Fàbregues S ,
      4. Bartlett G , et al
      . The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information 2018;34:285–91.doi:10.3233/EFI-180221
      OpenUrl
    101. ↵
      1. Cresswell and Plano-Clark
      . Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd edn. United States: Sage International, 2017.
    102. ↵
      1. NIHR
      . Payment guidance for researchers and professionals, 2020. Available: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/payment-guidance-for-researchers-and-professionals/27392 [Accessed 23rd Oct 2021].

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @hmlyphysio

    • Contributors HMLY conceived the study idea. HMLY, PCD, LYH, JS, JH, FC, HS, PJH, SL, MH, RP, SJS, TY, MJD designed the protocol. HMLY, MH and RP devised the stakeholder collaboration process. HMLY and SL designed the search strategy. HMLY prepared the manuscript. PCD, LYH, JS, JH, FC, HS, PJH, SL, MH, RP, SJS, TY, MJD reviewed final manuscript. Mentorship was provided by TY, SJS, MJD. HMLY, PCD, LYH, JS, JH, FC, HS, PJH, SL, MH, RP, SJS, TY, MJD contributed important intellectual content during manuscript drafting or revision. HMLY accepts accountability for the overall work ensuring that questions pertaining to the accuracy or integrity of any portion of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

    • Funding The research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East Midlands (CLAHRC EM). HMLY is supported by grants from the NIHR (NIHR301593). SJS is supported by the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East Midlands.

    • Disclaimer The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the 'Methods and analysis' section for further details.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.