ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To determine the criterion validity of the activPAL and ActiGraph for measuring steps and sitting/sedentary time, compared to observation, in people hospitalised following orthopaedic lower limb injury who were weight bearing (WB) (i.e., walking) or non-weight bearing (NWB) (i.e., hopping). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants wore an activPAL and ActiGraph on the hip/thigh/unaffected (UA)/affected ankle (AA) while completing bouts of walking and sitting. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman methods, and ratio of agreement were used to compare device-measured to observed (videoed) step count, sitting/sedentary time. RESULTS: In 42 participants, the ActiGraph demonstrated excellent concordance with the observed step count when worn on the ankle (LCC 0.91-0.92) compared to the hip (LCC 0.56) in participants that were WB. The ActiGraph AA achieved the highest concordance (LCC 0.71) with observed steps in participants NWB. The activPAL had poor concordance with observed steps, particularly at slow gait speeds, in participants that were WB (LCC 0.38-0.46), however was less influenced by gait speed and had good concordance in NWB participants (LCC 0.52-0.69). The activPAL (LCC 0.79-0.88) and ActiGraph UA (LCC 0.94) showed excellent concordance with observed sitting and sedentary time, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The ActiGraph worn at the ankle provided the most valid measure of steps in people who are WB and NWB following orthopaedic injury, while the activPAL was best for measuring sitting time.Implications for rehabilitationTo accurately measure both steps and sitting time in people with lower limb orthopaedic injuries, a combination of activity monitors should be used (i.e., ActiGraph for steps, activPAL for sitting time).The ActiGraph device when worn on the ankle demonstrated the strongest agreement with observed step count in people who were weight bearing and non-weight bearing.Caution is needed when using thigh- or hip-worn devices in people who walk slowly.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and synthesize the evidence on physical activity and sedentary behavior during and after hospitalization. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases and reference lists of relevant articles were searched from 2000 to April 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies which continuously monitored physical activity and/or sedentary behavior in hospitalized adults across 2 settings (ie, without a break in measurement between settings). Monitoring could occur from an acute to a subacute or rehabilitation hospital setting, an acute setting to home, or from a subacute or rehabilitation setting to home. DATE EXTRACTION: Data extraction and methodological quality assessments were independently performed by 2 reviewers using standardized checklists. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 15 of the 5579 studies identified were included. The studies were composed of heterogenous patient populations. All studies monitored patients with either an accelerometer and/or pedometer and reported a variety of measures, including steps per day, sedentary time, and activity counts. The majority of studies (12 of 15) showed that patients engaged in 1.3 to 5.9 times more physical activity and up to 67% less daily sedentary behavior at home after discharge from acute or subacute settings. CONCLUSIONS: Patients engaged in more physical activity and less sedentary behavior at home compared to both the acute and subacute hospital settings. This may reflect the natural course of recovery or the effect of setting on activity levels. Enabling early discharge home through the implementation of home-hospitalization models may result in increased patient physical activity and reduced sedentary behavior. Further experimental studies are required investigating the effect of home-based models of care on physical activity and sedentary behavior.
