Review and Criticism of Modelling the Effects of Physical Activity on Public Health

Caroline Shaw^*
*Correspondence: Caroline Shaw, Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, PO Box 7343, Newtown, Wellington 6242, New Zealand, Email:

Introduction

Physical activity is an important factor in promoting public health and preventing chronic diseases. The use of mathematical models has become increasingly popular in studying the effects of physical activity on public health. Mathematical models are used to describe the relationship between physical activity and health outcomes and to predict the impact of interventions aimed at increasing physical activity. This paper aims to review and critique the use of mathematical models in studying the effects of physical activity on public health [1].

Review of modelling the effects of physical activity on public health

Mathematical models have been used extensively to study the effects of physical activity on public health. These models typically incorporate data on physical activity levels, health outcomes, and other relevant factors to estimate the impact of physical activity on public health. Some examples of models used to study the effects of physical activity on public health include:

The global burden of disease study: The Global Burden of Disease Study uses mathematical models to estimate the global burden of disease associated with physical inactivity. The study estimates the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost due to physical inactivity and provides estimates of the potential health benefits of increasing physical activity levels [2].

The preventable risk integrated model (PRIME): The PRIME model estimates the impact of lifestyle factors, including physical activity, on chronic diseases such as diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. The model is used to estimate the potential health benefits of interventions aimed at increasing physical activity levels.

The diabetes prevention program outcomes study (DPPOS): The DPPOS uses mathematical models to estimate the long-term health benefits of lifestyle interventions aimed at preventing type 2diabetes. The model incorporates data on physical activity levels, dietary factors, and other relevant factors to estimate the impact of the interventions on health outcomes [3].

Critique of modelling the effects of physical activity on public health

While mathematical models have been useful in studying the effects of physical activity on public health, there are some limitations and criticisms of these models. Some of the critiques of modelling the effects of physical activity on public health include:

Assumptions and simplifications

Mathematical models are based on assumptions and simplifications that may not accurately reflect the complexity of real-world situations. For example, models may assume that physical activity levels are constant over time, which may not reflect the reality of changing physical activity patterns.

Lack of data: Models rely on data to estimate the relationship between physical activity and health outcomes. However, data on physical activity levels and health outcomes may be limited or of poor quality, which can limit the accuracy of the models.

Lack of transparency: Mathematical models can be complex and difficult to understand, which can limit their transparency and accessibility. This can make it difficult for policymakers and other stakeholders to evaluate the results of the models and make informed decisions.

Potential for bias

Mathematical models can be subject to bias if the assumptions and simplifications used in the model are not accurate or if the data used in the model is biased. Background The cost-effectiveness of the treatments has generally been established in reviews of economic analyses of physical activity in public health; however, the validity of the conclusions drawn depends on the suitability of the modelling techniques employed in the particular studies. Objective to give a summary and critique of modelling techniques and important structural hypotheses utilised in practical investigations to calculate the effect of physical activity on health. Methods Relevant model-based economic evaluations were found through a methodical search of electronic databases. The modelling investigations were evaluated using a theme approach. The assessment determined the suitability of the modelling frameworks and the veracity of significant structural hypotheses. Results There were 25 different models found. The most popular models were cohort models [4].

Most of the time, structural assumptions about the dynamics of changing physical activity were erroneous. Conclusions the majority of this material is characterised by modelling techniques that do not fully meet the challenges of illustrating the relationship between physical activity behaviour and population health. These sources of uncertainty might be diminished with the creation of a reference model and agreement on how to model the effects of physical exercise on public health [5].

Impact of physical activity on public health

Physical activity has a significant impact on public health. Regular physical activity can help reduce the risk of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancer. Physical activity can also improve mental health and cognitive function, and help reduce the risk of falls and other injuries in older adults. Physical activity can help reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease by improving cardiovascular health and reducing the risk of high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and obesity. Physical activity can also help improve insulin sensitivity and reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes. Physical activity has also been shown to reduce the risk of certain types of cancer, including colon, breast, and lung cancer.

Physical activity can also have positive effects on mental health. Regular physical activity has been shown to reduce symptoms of depression and anxiety and improve mood and cognitive function. Physical activity can also help reduce stress and improve sleep quality. There are several strategies that can be used to increase physical activity levels and promote public health. Environmental and policy changes can help create opportunities for physical activity and promote active lifestyles. Examples of environmental and policy changes include building sidewalks and bike lanes, creating parks and recreational areas, and implementing school-based physical activity programs.

Social support: Social support can help individuals adopt and maintain physical activity behaviours. Social support can come from family, friends, co-workers, and community groups. Social support can include providing encouragement and motivation, participating in physical activity together, and creating a supportive social environment.

Educational programs: Educational programs can provide individuals with the knowledge and skills needed to adopt and maintain physical activity behaviours. Examples of educational programs include physical education classes, health education classes, and workplace wellness programs.

Technology-based interventions

Technology-based interventions, such as mobile apps and wearable devices, can provide individuals with feedback and support to help them adopt and maintain physical activity behaviours. Physical activity is an important factor in promoting public health and preventing chronic diseases. Regular physical activity can help reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancer. Physical activity can also improve mental health and cognitive function, and help reduce the risk of falls and other injuries in older adults. Strategies for increasing physical activity levels include environmental and policy changes, social support, educational programs, and technology-based interventions. These strategies can help create opportunities for physical activity and promote active lifestyles, leading to improved public health outcomes.

Conclusion

Mathematical models have been useful in studying the effects of physical activity on public health. These models have provided valuable insights into the potential health benefits of increasing physical activity levels and the impact of lifestyle interventions on health outcomes. However, there are limitations and criticisms of these models, including assumptions and simplifications, lack of data, lack of transparency, and potential for bias. It is important to recognize these limitations and to use models in conjunction with other sources of evidence to inform public health policy and practice.

References

1. Macdonald, Laura, Jonathan R. Olsen, Niamh K. Shortt and Anne Ellaway. "Do ‘environmental bads’ such as alcohol, fast food, tobacco, and gambling outlets cluster and co-locate in more deprived areas in Glasgow City, Scotland?." Health Place 51 (2018): 224-231.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Castro, Marta, Dennis Pérez, Maria G. Guzman and Clare Barrington. "Why did Zika not explode in Cuba? The role of active community participation to sustain control of vector-borne diseases."  Am J Trop Med Hyg 97 (2017): 311.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Gainotti, Sabina, Nicola Moran, Carlo Petrini and Darren Shickle. "Ethical models underpinning responses to threats to public health: A comparison of approaches to communicable disease control in Europe." Bioethics 22 (2008): 466-476.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Kenny, Nuala P., Susan B. Sherwin and Françoise E. Baylis. "Re-visioning public health ethics: A relational perspective." Canadian J Pub Health 101 (2010): 9-11.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Maxwell, Terrence A. "The public need to know: emergencies, government organizations, and public information policies." Gov Inf Q 20 (2003): 233-258.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at