Validity of the activPAL and ActiGraph for measuring sitting time and steps in hospitalised orthopaedic patients with altered weight bearing.

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.

Levels of Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior During and After Hospitalization: A Systematic Review.

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.

Multifactorial falls prevention programmes for older adults presenting to the emergency department with a fall: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether multifactorial falls prevention interventions are effective in preventing falls, fall injuries, emergency department (ED) re-presentations and hospital admissions in older adults presenting to the ED with a fall. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: Four health-related electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched (inception to June 2018). STUDY SELECTION: RCTs of multifactorial falls prevention interventions targeting community-dwelling older adults ( ≥ 60 years) presenting to the ED with a fall with quantitative data on at least one review outcome. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers determined inclusion, assessed study quality and undertook data extraction, discrepancies resolved by a third. DATA SYNTHESIS: 12 studies involving 3986 participants, from six countries, were eligible for inclusion. Studies were of variable methodological quality. Multifactorial interventions were heterogeneous, though the majority included education, referral to healthcare services, home modifications, exercise and medication changes. Meta-analyses demonstrated no reduction in falls (rate ratio = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.05), number of fallers (risk ratio = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.18), rate of fractured neck of femur (risk ratio = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.25), fall-related ED presentations (rate ratio = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.16) or hospitalisations (rate ratio = 1.14; 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.89) with multifactorial falls prevention programmes. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support the use of multifactorial interventions to prevent falls or hospital utilisation in older people presenting to ED following a fall. Further research targeting this population group is required.

The effect of symptom-controlling medication on gait outcomes in people with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To synthesise and critically appraise randomised controlled trials examining the effect of symptom-controlling medication on gait outcomes in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). METHOD: The literature search examined five databases (Medline, Embase, AMED, Cochrane (CENTRAL), and CINAHL until the end of November 2016. Eligible studies included medication to address symptoms associated with MS and an objective gait outcome measure. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality using structured data extraction forms and the PEDro scale. RESULTS: From 249 papers identified, 13 papers met inclusion criteria, examining three medications. Fampridine was found to significantly increase gait speed, but only in those people who responded to medication, which was less than half (pooled mean: 39%). Ten milligrams of fampridine twice daily significantly improves gait endurance. No definitive conclusions can be made about the efficacy of cannabinoid medication due to conflicting results across three studies. A single study of baclofen did not provide evidence to support the use of this medication to improve gait. CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence is available to guide gait symptom control for people with MS. Further research that includes three-dimensional gait analysis, patient perceived measures of gait dysfunction and explores combined efficacy of other modalities on gait is needed. Implications for Rehabilitation Gait disturbance is a common and disabling symptom of multiple sclerosis. Fampridine and cannabis medication may increase gait speed, baclofen does not. Fampridine can be used to improve gait endurance. Future research should include both quantitative and qualitative outcome measures of gait and investigate the combined efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to assist clinicians to maximise gait improvements.