Differences in elementary-age children's accelerometer - measured physical activity between school and summer: three-year findings from the What's UP (Undermining Prevention) with summer observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Among elementary-aged children (5-12yrs), summer vacation is associated with accelerated gains in Body Mass Index (BMI). A key behavioral driver of BMI gain is a lack of physical activity (PA). Previous studies indicate PA decreases during summer, compared to the school year but whether this difference is consistent among boys and girls, across age, and by income status remains unclear. This study examined differences in school and summer movement behaviors in a diverse cohort of children across three years. METHODS: Children (N = 1,203, age range 5-14 years, 48% girls) wore wrist-placed accelerometers for a 14-day wear-period during school (April/May) and summer (July) in 2021 to 2023, for a total of 6 timepoints. Mixed-effects models examined changes in school vs. summer movement behaviors (moderate-to-vigorous physical activity [MVPA], sedentary) for boys and girls, separately, and by age and household income groups (low, middle, and upper based on income-to-poverty ratio). RESULTS: Children provided a total of 35,435 valid days of accelerometry. Overall, boys (+ 9.1 min/day, 95CI 8.1 to 10.2) and girls (+ 6.2 min/day, 95CI 5.4 to 7.0) accumulated more MVPA during school compared to summer. Boys accumulated less time sedentary (-9.9 min/day, 95CI -13.0 to -6.9) during school, while there was no difference in sedentary time (-2.7 min/day, 95CI -5.7 to 0.4) for girls. Different patterns emerged across ages and income groups. Accumulation of MVPA was consistently greater during school compared to summer across ages and income groups. Generally, the difference between school and summer widened with increasing age, except for girls from middle-income households. Accumulation of sedentary time was higher during school for younger children (5-9yrs), whereas for older children (10-14yrs), sedentary time was greater during summer for the middle- and upper-income groups. For boys from low-income households and girls from middle-income households, sedentary time was consistently greater during summer compared to school across ages. CONCLUSIONS: Children are less active and more sedentary during summer compared to school, which may contribute to accelerated BMI gain. However, this differs by biological sex, age, and income. These findings highlight the complex factors influencing movement behaviors between school and summer.

Physical Activity and Sedentary Time Among U.S. Adolescents Before and During COVID-19: Findings From a Large Cohort Study.

Introduction: Evidence suggests that adolescents engage in less physical activity during the summer break. Less is known regarding physical activity during the summer months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Utilizing data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study, the authors examined daily activity measured by Fitbit Charge 2 devices before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic during school and summer months. Linear models estimated activity during pre-COVID-19 school, pre-COVID-19 summer, COVID-19 school, and COVID-19 summer. Results: Participants (N=7,179, aged 11.96 years, 51% female, 51% White) accumulated 8,671.0 (95% CI=8,544.7; 8,797.3) steps, 32.5 (95% CI=30.8, 32.3) minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, and 507.2 (95% CI=504.2, 510.2) minutes of sedentary time. During COVID-19 school, adolescents accumulated fewer daily steps and minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (-1,782.3 steps [95% CI= -2,052.7; -1,511.8] and -6.2 minutes [95% CI= -8.4, -4.0], respectively). Adolescents accumulated more minutes of daily sedentary time (29.6 minutes [95% CI=18.9, 40.3]) during COVID-19 school months than during the pre-COVID-19 school months. During pre-COVID-19 summer months, adolescents accumulated 1,255.1 (95% CI=745.3; 1,765.0) more daily steps than during COVID-19 months. Boys accumulated more daily steps and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (2,011.5 steps [95% CI=1,271.9; 2,751.0] and 7.9 minutes [95% CI=1.4, 14.4], respectively) during the summer before COVID-19 than in summer during COVID-19. Both girls and boys accumulated more minutes of sedentary time during COVID-19 school months (47.4 [95% CI=27.5, 67.3] and 51.2 [95% CI=22.8, 79.7], respectively) than during COVID-19 summer months. Conclusions: Societal restrictions during COVID-19 negatively impacted activity levels in the U.S., particularly during the summer months during COVID-19.

Consolidated guidance for behavioral intervention pilot and feasibility studies.

BACKGROUND: In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences. METHODS: To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of a well-known PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences. RESULTS: A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the three-round Delphi survey (round 1, N = 46; round 2, N = 24; round 3, N = 22). A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (intervention design, study design, conduct of trial, implementation of intervention, statistical analysis, and reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading. CONCLUSION: We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

The Day-Level Association Between Child Care Attendance and 24-Hour Movement Behaviors in Preschool-Aged Children.

BACKGROUND: Twenty-four hour movement behaviors (ie, physical activity [PA], screen time [ST], and sleep) are associated with children's health outcomes. Identifying day-level contextual factors, such as child care, that positively influence children's movement behaviors may help identify potential intervention targets, like improving access to child care programs. This study aimed to examine the between- and within-person effects of child care on preschoolers' 24-hour movement behaviors. METHODS: Children (N = 74, 4.7 [0.9] y, 48.9% girls, 63.3% White) wore an Axivity AX3 accelerometer on their nondominant wrist 24 hours per day for 14 days to measure PA and sleep. Parents completed surveys each night about their child's ST and child care attendance that day. Linear mixed effects models predicted day-level 24-hour movement behaviors from hours spent in child care. RESULTS: Children spent an average of 5.0 (2.9) hours per day in child care. For every additional hour of child care above their average, children had 0.3 hours (95% CI, -0.3 to -0.2) less ST that day. Between-person effects showed that compared with children who attended fewer overall hours of child care, children who attended more hours had less overall ST (B = -0.2 h; 95% CI, -0.4 to 0.0). Child care was not significantly associated with PA or sleep. CONCLUSIONS: Child care attendance was not associated with 24-hour PA or sleep; however, it was associated with less ST. More research utilizing objective measures of ST and more robust measures of daily schedules or structure is necessary to better understand how existing infrastructure may influence preschool-aged children's 24-hour movement behaviors. In addition, future research should consider how access to child care may influence child care attendance.

Balancing best practice and reality in behavioral intervention development: A survey of principal investigators funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Preliminary studies play a prominent role in the development of large-scale behavioral interventions. Though recommendations exist to guide the execution and interpretation of preliminary studies, these assume optimal scenarios which may clash with realities faced by researchers. The purpose of this study was to explore how principal investigators (PIs) balance expectations when conducting preliminary studies. We surveyed PIs funded by the National Institutes of Health to conduct preliminary behavioral interventions between 2000 and 2020. Four hundred thirty-one PIs (19% response rate) completed the survey (November 2021 to January 2022, 72% female, mean 21 years post-terminal degree). Most PIs were aware of translational models and believed preliminary studies should precede larger trials but also believed a single preliminary study provided sufficient evidence to scale. When asked about the relative importance of preliminary efficacy (i.e. changes in outcomes) and feasibility (i.e. recruitment, acceptance/adherence) responses varied. Preliminary studies were perceived as necessary to successfully compete for research funding, but among PIs who had peer-reviewed federal-level grants applications (n = 343 [80%]), responses varied about what should be presented to secure funding. Confusion surrounding the definition of a successful, informative preliminary study poses a significant challenge when developing behavior interventions. This may be due to a mismatch between expectations surrounding preliminary studies and the realities of the research enterprise in which they are conducted. To improve the quality of preliminary studies and advance the field of behavioral interventions, additional funding opportunities, more transparent criteria in grant reviews, and additional training for grant reviewers are suggested.

Initial testing of behavioral interventions can provide valuable information about the methods of the intervention and whether it is effective. However, recommendations that provide researchers with guidance on how to best conduct pilot studies assume ideal circumstances. The mismatch between what can be realistically accomplished in a preliminary study, and what researchers expect from preliminary studies creates confusion. As a result, it is difficult for researchers to judge the quality, relevance, and potential of preliminary studies. This study suggests more research funding opportunities, clearer rules for reviewing grant applications, and more training for the people who review these applications could help improve preliminary studies and create more effective health behavior programs.

Comparison of raw accelerometry data from ActiGraph, Apple Watch, Garmin, and Fitbit using a mechanical shaker table.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the raw accelerometry output from research-grade and consumer wearable devices compared to accelerations produced by a mechanical shaker table. Raw accelerometry data from a total of 40 devices (i.e., n = 10 ActiGraph wGT3X-BT, n = 10 Apple Watch Series 7, n = 10 Garmin Vivoactive 4S, and n = 10 Fitbit Sense) were compared to reference accelerations produced by an orbital shaker table at speeds ranging from 0.6 Hz (4.4 milligravity-mg) to 3.2 Hz (124.7mg). Two-way random effects absolute intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) tested inter-device reliability. Pearson product moment, Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), absolute error, mean bias, and equivalence testing were calculated to assess the validity between the raw estimates from the devices and the reference metric. Estimates from Apple, ActiGraph, Garmin, and Fitbit were reliable, with ICCs = 0.99, 0.97, 0.88, and 0.88, respectively. Estimates from ActiGraph, Apple, and Fitbit devices exhibited excellent concordance with the reference CCCs = 0.88, 0.83, and 0.85, respectively, while estimates from Garmin exhibited moderate concordance CCC = 0.59 based on the mean aggregation method. ActiGraph, Apple, and Fitbit produced similar absolute errors = 16.9mg, 21.6mg, and 22.0mg, respectively, while Garmin produced higher absolute error = 32.5mg compared to the reference. ActiGraph produced the lowest mean bias 0.0mg (95%CI = -40.0, 41.0). Equivalence testing revealed raw accelerometry data from all devices were not statistically significantly within the equivalence bounds of the shaker speed. Findings from this study provide evidence that raw accelerometry data from Apple, Garmin, and Fitbit devices can be used to reliably estimate movement; however, no estimates were statistically significantly equivalent to the reference. Future studies could explore device-agnostic and harmonization methods for estimating physical activity using the raw accelerometry signals from the consumer wearables studied herein.

Are the Risk of Generalizability Biases Generalizable? A Meta-Epidemiological Study.

Background: Preliminary studies (e.g., pilot/feasibility studies) can result in misleading evidence that an intervention is ready to be evaluated in a large-scale trial when it is not. Risk of Generalizability Biases (RGBs, a set of external validity biases) represent study features that influence estimates of effectiveness, often inflating estimates in preliminary studies which are not replicated in larger-scale trials. While RGBs have been empirically established in interventions targeting obesity, the extent to which RGBs generalize to other health areas is unknown. Understanding the relevance of RGBs across health behavior intervention research can inform organized efforts to reduce their prevalence. Purpose: The purpose of our study was to examine whether RGBs generalize outside of obesity-related interventions. Methods: A systematic review identified health behavior interventions across four behaviors unrelated to obesity that follow a similar intervention development framework of preliminary studies informing larger-scale trials (i.e., tobacco use disorder, alcohol use disorder, interpersonal violence, and behaviors related to increased sexually transmitted infections). To be included, published interventions had to be tested in a preliminary study followed by testing in a larger trial (the two studies thus comprising a study pair). We extracted health-related outcomes and coded the presence/absence of RGBs. We used meta-regression models to estimate the impact of RGBs on the change in standardized mean difference (ΔSMD) between the preliminary study and larger trial. Results: We identified sixty-nine study pairs, of which forty-seven were eligible for inclusion in the analysis (k = 156 effects), with RGBs identified for each behavior. For pairs where the RGB was present in the preliminary study but removed in the larger trial the treatment effect decreased by an average of ΔSMD=-0.38 (range - 0.69 to -0.21). This provides evidence of larger drop in effectiveness for studies containing RGBs relative to study pairs with no RGBs present (treatment effect decreased by an average of ΔSMD =-0.24, range - 0.19 to -0.27). Conclusion: RGBs may be associated with higher effect estimates across diverse areas of health intervention research. These findings suggest commonalities shared across health behavior intervention fields may facilitate introduction of RGBs within preliminary studies, rather than RGBs being isolated to a single health behavior field.

A comparison of perceived barriers to optimal child sleep among families with low and high income.

OBJECTIVE: Families with low-income experience suboptimal sleep compared to families with higher-income. Unique drivers likely contribute to these disparities, along with factors that universally impede sleep patterns, despite income level. To inform intervention tailoring, this mixed-methods study gathered parent's perceptions about child sleep challenges to identify similarities/differences in families with lower-income and higher-income. METHODS: Parents who experienced difficulties with their child (ages 2-4years) sleep were categorized as lower income (n = 15; $30,000 ± 17,845/year) or higher income (n = 15; $142,400 ± 61,373/year). Parents completed a survey and semistructured interview to explore barriers and facilitators for child sleep. Two coders independently evaluated transcripts for lower-income and higher-income groups using inductive analyses. Constant-comparison methods generated themes and characterized similarities/differences by income group. RESULTS: Groups were similar in themes related to diverse bedtime routines, nighttime struggles with child sleep, parent strategies to reduce night wakings, parent effort to provide a sleep-promoting environment, and presence of electronic rules. Groups differed in themes related to factors influencing routine setting (eg, lower income: external factors influencing routines; higher income: personal attributes for structure), parent appraisal of child sleep (eg, higher income: ambivalence; lower income: mostly negative appraisal), nap timing and duration (eg, lower income: longer naps), and strategy utilization and pursuit of resources (eg, higher income: more parents tried various strategies and accessed online/print resources). CONCLUSIONS: Parents experienced many similar barriers to child sleep, with a few distinct differences by income group. These findings can inform future intervention components for all families, as well as customized components to address the unique needs of families across income levels.

Understanding Accelerated Summer Body Mass Index Gain by Tracking Changes in Children's Height, Weight, and Body Mass Index Throughout the Year.

Background: Drivers of summer body mass index (BMI) gain in children remain unclear. The Circadian and Circannual Rhythm Model (CCRM) posits summer BMI gain is biologically driven, while the Structured Days Hypothesis (SDH) proposes it is driven by reduced structure. Objectives: Identify the mechanisms driving children's seasonal BMI gain through the CCRM and SDH. Methods: Children's (N = 147, mean age = 8.2 years) height and weight were measured monthly during the school year, and once in summer (July-August). BMI z-score (zBMI) was calculated using CDC growth charts. Behaviors were measured once per season. Mixed methods regression estimated monthly percent change in children's height (%HΔ), weight (%WΔ), and monthly zBMI for school year vs. summer vacation, seasonally, and during school months with no breaks vs. school months with a break ≥1 week. Results: School year vs. summer vacation analyses showed accelerations in children's %WΔ (Δ = 0.9, Standard Error (SE) = 0.1 vs. Δ = 1.4, SE = 0.1) and zBMI (Δ = -0.01, SE = 0.01 vs. Δ = 0.04, SE = 0.3) during summer vacation, but %HΔ remained relatively constant during summer vacation compared with school (Δ = 0.3, SE = 0.0 vs. Δ = 0.4, SE = 0.1). Seasonal analyses showed summer had the greatest %WΔ (Δ = 1.8, SE = 0.4) and zBMI change (Δ = 0.05, SE = 0.03) while %HΔ was relatively constant across seasons. Compared with school months without a break, months with a break showed higher %WΔ (Δ = 0.7, SE = 0.1 vs. Δ = 1.6, SE = 0.2) and zBMI change (Δ = -0.03, SE = 0.01 vs. Δ = 0.04, SE = 0.01), but %HΔ was constant (Δ = 0.4, SE = 0.0 vs. Δ = 0.3, SE = 0.1). Fluctuations in sleep timing and screen time may explain these changes. Conclusions: Evidence for both the CCRM and SDH was identified but the SDH may more fully explain BMI gain. Interventions targeting consistent sleep and reduced screen time during breaks from school may be warranted no matter the season.

Are parent-reported sleep logs essential? A comparison of three approaches to guide open source accelerometry-based nocturnal sleep processing in children.

We examined the comparability of children's nocturnal sleep estimates using accelerometry data, processed with and without a sleep log. In a secondary analysis, we evaluated factors associated with disagreement between processing approaches. Children (n = 722, age 5-12 years) wore a wrist-based accelerometer for 14 days during Autumn 2020, Spring 2021, and/or Summer 2021. Outcomes included sleep period, duration, wake after sleep onset (WASO), and timing (onset, midpoint, waketime). Parents completed surveys including children's nightly bed/wake time. Data were processed with parent-reported bed/wake time (sleep log), the Heuristic algorithm looking at Distribution of Change in Z-Angle (HDCZA) algorithm (no log), and an 8 p.m.-8 a.m. window (generic log) using the R-package 'GGIR' (version 2.6-4). Mean/absolute bias and limits of agreement were calculated and visualised with Bland-Altman plots. Associations between child, home, and survey characteristics and disagreement were examined with tobit regression. Just over half of nights demonstrated no difference in sleep period between sleep log and no log approaches. Among all nights, the sleep log approach produced longer sleep periods (9.3 min; absolute mean bias [AMB] = 28.0 min), shorter duration (1.4 min; AMB = 14.0 min), greater WASO (11.0 min; AMB = 15.4 min), and earlier onset (13.4 min; AMB = 17.4 min), midpoint (8.8 min; AMB = 15.3 min), and waketime (3.9 min; AMB = 14.8 min) than no log. Factors associated with discrepancies included smartphone ownership, bedroom screens, nontraditional parent work schedule, and completion on weekend/summer nights (range = 0.4-10.2 min). The generic log resulted in greater AMB among sleep outcomes. Small mean differences were observed between nights with and without a sleep log. Discrepancies existed on weekends, in summer, and for children with smartphones and screens in the bedroom.