↓ Skip to main content

Exercise in the treatment of clinical anxiety in general practice – a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 7,714)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
50 news outlets
blogs
6 blogs
twitter
335 tweeters
facebook
15 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor
video
4 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
96 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
365 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exercise in the treatment of clinical anxiety in general practice – a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3313-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth Aylett, Nicola Small, Peter Bower

Abstract

Anxiety disorders are common, yet treatment options in general practice are often limited to medication or CBT. There is a lack of evidence for the effectiveness of exercise in the treatment of anxiety in patients who present to general practice and also about the intensity of exercise required to lead to improvement. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the use of exercise versus waiting list control groups in the treatment of anxiety and also to assess the benefit of high intensity exercise vs low intensity exercise. Long term follow up scores were also analysed. We included patients who met diagnostic criteria for anxiety disorders or had clinically raised anxiety levels on a validated rating scale and performed a subgroup analysis of the outcomes between the two groups. The intervention was any aerobic exercise programme carried out for at least two weeks, or exercise carried out at high intensity for at least two weeks. The comparison groups were either a waiting list control group or low intensity exercise. Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Three databases were searched; CENTRAL, Medline and Embase. Outcome assessment was based on validated anxiety rating scales. The quality of the studies was appraised according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Effect sizes were calculated using the standardised mean difference. Fifteen studies were identified with a total of 675 patients. Nine trials had participants with diagnosed anxiety disorders and six trials had participants with raised anxiety on a validated rating scale. Aerobic exercise was effective in the treatment of raised anxiety compared to waiting list control groups (effect size - 0.41, 95% CI = - 0.70 to - 0.12). High intensity exercise programmes showed greater effects than low intensity programmes. There was no significant difference in outcomes between groups of patients with diagnosed anxiety disorders and patients who had raised anxiety on a rating scale. Conclusions were limited by the small number of studies and wide variation in the delivery of exercise interventions. Exercise programmes are a viable treatment option for the treatment of anxiety. High intensity exercise regimens were found to be more effective than low intensity regimens. The results have implications for the use of exercise schemes in General Practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 335 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 365 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 365 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 64 18%
Student > Master 53 15%
Other 26 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 5%
Other 60 16%
Unknown 126 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 56 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 49 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 9%
Sports and Recreations 27 7%
Neuroscience 16 4%
Other 56 15%
Unknown 128 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 655. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 January 2023.
All research outputs
#27,164
of 23,036,991 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 7,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#627
of 326,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,036,991 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,626 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.