Is it really home‐based? A commentary on the necessity for accurate definitions across exercise and physical activity programmes.

Abstract

Background: There is wide discrepancy in how published research defines and reports home‐based exercise programmes. Studies consisting of fundamentally different designs have been labelled as home‐based, making searching for relevant literature challenging and time consuming. This issue has been further highlighted by an increased demand for these programmes following the COVID‐19 pandemic and associated government‐imposed lockdowns. Purpose: To examine what specifically constitutes home‐based exercise by: 1) developing definitions for a range of terms used when reporting exercise and physical activity programmes and 2) providing examples to con-textualise these definitions for use when reporting exercise and physical activity programmes. Meth-ods: A literature search was undertaken to identify previous attempts to define home‐based exercise programmes. A working document, including initial definitions and examples were developed, which were then discussed between six experts for further refinement. Results: We generated definitions for universal key terms within three domains (and subdomains) of programme design: lo-cation (home‐based, community/centre‐based, or clinical setting), prescription (structured or un-structured) and delivery (supervised, facilitated, or unsupervised). Examples for possible combina-tions of design terms were produced. Conclusions: Definitions will provide consistency when using reporting tools and the intention is to discuss the issues presented as part of a Delphi study. This is of paramount importance due to the predicted increase in emerging research regarding home‐based exercise.