Institution
Glasgow Caledonian University
Education•Glasgow, United Kingdom•
About: Glasgow Caledonian University is a education organization based out in Glasgow, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 3547 authors who have published 9059 publications receiving 255173 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
University of Coimbra1, University of Southern Queensland2, National Institute for Health and Welfare3, Arizona State University4, Ghent University5, Institute of Technology, Tralee6, University of Ottawa7, Glasgow Caledonian University8, Oregon Health & Science University9, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust10, George Washington University11, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences12, Norwegian Institute of Public Health13, University of Sydney14, Alberta Health Services15, Queen's University Belfast16, University of Bristol17, Pennington Biomedical Research Center18, University of Cape Town19, University of Regensburg20, University of East Anglia21, University of Granada22, University of Colombo23, National Institutes of Health24, World Health Organization25
TL;DR: New WHO 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour reaffirm messages that some physical activity is better than none, that more physical Activity is better for optimal health outcomes and provide a new recommendation on reducing sedentary behaviours.
Abstract: Objectives To describe new WHO 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Methods The guidelines were developed in accordance with WHO protocols. An expert Guideline Development Group reviewed evidence to assess associations between physical activity and sedentary behaviour for an agreed set of health outcomes and population groups. The assessment used and systematically updated recent relevant systematic reviews; new primary reviews addressed additional health outcomes or subpopulations. Results The new guidelines address children, adolescents, adults, older adults and include new specific recommendations for pregnant and postpartum women and people living with chronic conditions or disability. All adults should undertake 150-300 min of moderate-intensity, or 75-150 min of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or some equivalent combination of moderate-intensity and vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity, per week. Among children and adolescents, an average of 60 min/day of moderate-to-vigorous intensity aerobic physical activity across the week provides health benefits. The guidelines recommend regular muscle-strengthening activity for all age groups. Additionally, reducing sedentary behaviours is recommended across all age groups and abilities, although evidence was insufficient to quantify a sedentary behaviour threshold. Conclusion These 2020 WHO guidelines update previous WHO recommendations released in 2010. They reaffirm messages that some physical activity is better than none, that more physical activity is better for optimal health outcomes and provide a new recommendation on reducing sedentary behaviours. These guidelines highlight the importance of regularly undertaking both aerobic and muscle strengthening activities and for the first time, there are specific recommendations for specific populations including for pregnant and postpartum women and people living with chronic conditions or disability. These guidelines should be used to inform national health policies aligned with the WHO Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018-2030 and to strengthen surveillance systems that track progress towards national and global targets.
3,218 citations
••
TL;DR: It is hoped that the definitions resulting from this comprehensive, transparent, and broad-based participatory process will result in standardized terminology that is widely supported and adopted, thereby advancing future research, interventions, policies, and practices related to sedentary behaviors.
Abstract: Background: The prominence of sedentary behavior research in health science has grown rapidly. With this growth there is increasing urgency for clear, common and accepted terminology and definitions. Such standardization is difficult to achieve, especially across multi-disciplinary researchers, practitioners, and industries. The Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) undertook a Terminology Consensus Project to address this need. Method: First, a literature review was completed to identify key terms in sedentary behavior research. These key terms were then reviewed and modified by a Steering Committee formed by SBRN. Next, SBRN members were invited to contribute to this project and interested participants reviewed and provided feedback on the proposed list of terms and draft definitions through an online survey. Finally, a conceptual model and consensus definitions (including caveats and examples for all age groups and functional abilities) were finalized based on the feedback received from the 87 SBRN member participants who responded to the original invitation and survey. Results: Consensus definitions for the terms physical inactivity, stationary behavior, sedentary behavior, standing, screen time, non-screen-based sedentary time, sitting, reclining, lying, sedentary behavior pattern, as well as how the terms bouts, breaks, and interruptions should be used in this context are provided. Conclusion: It is hoped that the definitions resulting from this comprehensive, transparent, and broad-based participatory process will result in standardized terminology that is widely supported and adopted, thereby advancing future research, interventions, policies, and practices related to sedentary behaviors.
2,025 citations
••
TL;DR: Three areas are consistently activated in association with theory of mind: the anterior paracingulate cortex, the superior temporal sulci and the temporal poles bilaterally.
1,931 citations
••
TL;DR: Although the existing evidence is limited by poor trial designs, some treatments do show promise for improving motor recovery, particularly those that have focused on high-intensity and repetitive task-specific practice.
Abstract: Loss of functional movement is a common consequence of stroke for which a wide range of interventions has been developed. In this Review, we aimed to provide an overview of the available evidence on interventions for motor recovery after stroke through the evaluation of systematic reviews, supplemented by recent randomised controlled trials. Most trials were small and had some design limitations. Improvements in recovery of arm function were seen for constraint-induced movement therapy, electromyographic biofeedback, mental practice with motor imagery, and robotics. Improvements in transfer ability or balance were seen with repetitive task training, biofeedback, and training with a moving platform. Physical fitness training, high-intensity therapy (usually physiotherapy), and repetitive task training improved walking speed. Although the existing evidence is limited by poor trial designs, some treatments do show promise for improving motor recovery, particularly those that have focused on high-intensity and repetitive task-specific practice.
1,810 citations
••
Clinical Trial Service Unit1, Glasgow Caledonian University2, Institut Gustave Roussy3, All India Institute of Medical Sciences4, Cairo University5, Monash University6, Queen's University Belfast7, University of Newcastle8, Tehran University of Medical Sciences9, Kaohsiung Medical University10, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center11, Tata Memorial Hospital12, Charles University in Prague13, Cancer Institute14
TL;DR: Treatment allocation seemed to have no effect on breast cancer outcome among 1248 women with ER-negative disease, and an intermediate effect among 4800 women with unknown ER status, and a further reduction in recurrence and mortality, particularly after year 10.
1,637 citations
Authors
Showing all 3575 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Chris D. Frith | 173 | 524 | 130472 |
Heather Gray | 129 | 966 | 80970 |
David A. Cooper | 117 | 903 | 69249 |
B. Barr | 108 | 386 | 72285 |
Matthew Pitkin | 107 | 387 | 70071 |
Graham Woan | 107 | 411 | 70890 |
C. Messenger | 106 | 402 | 69265 |
A. Cumming | 105 | 331 | 68508 |
G. D. Hammond | 100 | 352 | 67549 |
David J. Burn | 100 | 446 | 39120 |
B. Sorazu | 98 | 347 | 65989 |
David Jones | 98 | 420 | 62627 |
Martin Hendry | 93 | 375 | 63965 |
Sebastian Steinlechner | 93 | 299 | 62949 |
David W. Dunstan | 91 | 403 | 37901 |