Impact of accelerometer and pedometer use on physical activity and glycaemic control in people with Type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Self-directed pedometer use increases physical activity levels in the general population; however, evidence of benefit for Type 2 diabetes is unclear and has not been systematically reviewed for accelerometers. AIM: To examine the impact of using physical activity monitoring devices (pedometers and accelerometers) on free-living physical activity and HbA1c levels in people with Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review. Bibliographic databases included Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, SportDiscus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included controlled trials evaluating interventions based on the use of pedometers or accelerometers to promote physical activity in people with Type 2 diabetes. Primary outcomes were physical activity (min/week or steps) and HbA1c [mmol/mol (%)]. Secondary outcomes were weight, blood pressure and lipid profile. RESULTS: Twelve trials (1458 participants) were identified, of which nine studied pedometers and three accelerometers. Random-effects meta-analysis showed an overall increase in physical activity (standardized mean difference 0.57, 95% CI 0.24, 0.91) in the intervention groups. Accelerometers and pedometers produced a similar effect size. No significant differences were observed in HbA1c , BMI, blood pressure or lipid profile. CONCLUSIONS: People with Type 2 diabetes, provided with an accelerometer or pedometer, substantially increased their free-living physical activity. There is no evidence that monitor use alone improves HbA1c or other clinical outcomes. Further trials are needed to compare the relative effects of activity monitors within differing complex interventions.

Perceptions of risks for diabetes-related complications in Type 2 diabetes populations: a systematic review.

AIM: In Type 2 diabetes, there is no clear understanding of how people perceive their risk of experiencing diabetes-related complications. To address this issue, we undertook an evidence-based synthesis of how people with Type 2 diabetes perceive their risk of complications. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of nine electronic databases for peer-reviewed articles published on or before 1 March 2016. Data from 18 studies reporting lay perceptions of risks for complications in Type 2 diabetes populations were included. Publication year ranged between 2002 and 2014. RESULTS: Methods used to assess risk perceptions were heterogeneous, ranging from questionnaires measuring the accuracy of perceived risks to semi-structured and focus group interviews. We found evidence of low risk awareness in most dimensions of risk perceptions measured and the existence of optimistic bias. CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions were generally biased and varied according to the dimension of risk measured, the subpopulation concerned and the type of complications considered. Future work is needed to identify the best practical ways of correcting for biased risk perceptions so as to encourage self-care behaviours and treatment adherence.

Day case adenoidectomy: is it acceptable to parents?

In this prospective, randomized and controlled study, 64 children were randomly allocated to in-patient or day case adenoidectomy. The pre- and post-operative concerns of the parents of both groups were measured and compared. No differences in the degree of concern was detected between the two groups. All of the parents from the day case group approved of day care, and 57% of the in-patient group would have preferred day case care.

The Graf stabilisation system: early results in 50 patients.

The results of the first 50 consecutive patients using the Graf stabilisation system are presented. The average age of the patients was 41 years; there were 32 women and 18 men in the group. All patients suffered from intractable symptomatic degenerative disc disease which could be localised to one or more levels. All patients gave a history of chronic back pain, but the mean period of severe disability was 24 months. The mean preoperative disability score (Oswestry questionnaire) was 59%. The average period of follow-up was 24 months (range 19-36 months). At the latest review, the mean disability score was 31%. The clinical results were classified as "excellent" or "good" in 72% of patients, "fair" in 10%, "the same" in 16% and "worse" in 2%. All but three patients felt that surgery was worthwhile. The results have not deteriorated over the period of follow-up.