Dataset Information

Accelerometer- and Pedometer-Based Physical Activity Interventions Among Adults With Cardiometabolic Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Accelerometers and pedometers are accessible technologies that could have a role in encouraging physical activity (PA) in line with current recommendations. However, there is no solid evidence of their association with PA in participants with 1 or more cardiometabolic conditions such as diabetes, prediabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.

Objectives

To assess the association of accelerometer- and pedometer-based interventions with increased activity and other improved health outcomes in adults with cardiometabolic conditions and to examine characteristics of the studies that could influence the association of both interventions in improving PA.

Data sources

Records from MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and PsycINFO were searched from inception until August 2018 with no language restriction.

Study selection

Randomized clinical trials or cluster randomized clinical trials evaluating the use of wearable technology devices such as pedometers and accelerometers as motivating and monitoring tools for increasing PA were included. After removing duplicates, the searches retrieved 5762 references. Following abstract and title screening of 1439 references and full-text screening of 107 studies, 36 studies met inclusion criteria.

Data extraction and synthesis

Mean difference in PA was assessed by random-effects meta-analysis. Where the scale was different across studies, the standardized mean difference was used instead. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic and explored using mixed-effects metaregression. This study was registered with PROSPERO and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was objectively measured PA in the short to medium term (postintervention to 8 months' follow-up).

Results

Thirty-six randomized clinical trials (20 using accelerometers and 16 using pedometers) involving 5208 participants were eligible for review. Meta-analysis involving 32 of these trials (4856 participants) showed medium improvements in PA: accelerometers and pedometers combined vs comparator showed a small significant increase in PA overall (standardized mean difference, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.28-0.51]; I2?=?60% [95% CI, 41%-73%]) in studies of short to medium follow-up over a mean (SD) of 32 (28.6) weeks. Multivariable metaregression showed improved association with PA for complex interventions that involved face-to-face consultation sessions with facilitators (??=?0.36; 95% CI, 0.17-0.55; P?Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, complex accelerometer- and pedometer-based interventions led to significant small to medium improvements in PA levels of people with cardiometabolic conditions. However, longer-term trials are needed to assess their performance over time. This study found no evidence that simple self-monitored interventions using either pedometers or accelerometers are associated with improvements in PA.

SUBMITTER: Hodkinson A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6802237 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accelerometer- and Pedometer-Based Physical Activity Interventions Among Adults With Cardiometabolic Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Hodkinson Alexander A Kontopantelis Evangelos E Adeniji Charles C van Marwijk Harm H McMillan Brian B Bower Peter P Panagioti Maria M

JAMA network open 20191002 10

<h4>Importance</h4>Accelerometers and pedometers are accessible technologies that could have a role in encouraging physical activity (PA) in line with current recommendations. However, there is no solid evidence of their association with PA in participants with 1 or more cardiometabolic conditions such as diabetes, prediabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the association of accelerometer- and pedometer-based interventions with increased activity and other imp ...[more]

PMID: 31596494

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceWearable physical activity (PA) trackers, such as accelerometers, fitness trackers, and pedometers, are accessible technologies that may encourage increased PA levels in line with current recommendations. However, whether their use is associated with improvements in PA levels in participants who experience 1 or more cardiometabolic conditions, such as diabetes, prediabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease, is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the association of interventions using wearable PA trackers (accelerometers, fitness trackers, and pedometers) with PA levels and other health outcomes in adults with cardiometabolic conditions.Data sourcesFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, searches of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO were performed from January 1, 2000, until December 31, 2020, with no language restriction. A combination of Medical Subject Heading terms and text words of diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, pedometers, accelerometers, and Fitbits were used.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials or cluster randomized clinical trials that evaluated the use of wearable PA trackers, such as pedometers, accelerometers, or fitness trackers, were included. Trials were excluded if they assessed the trackers only as measuring tools of PA before and after another intervention, they required participants to be hospitalized, assessors were not blinded to the trackers, or they used a tracker to measure the effect of a pharmacological treatment on PA among individuals.Data extraction and synthesisThe study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was mean difference in PA levels. When the scale was different across studies, standardized mean differences were calculated. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic and explored using mixed-effects metaregression.ResultsA total of 38 randomized clinical trials with 4203 participants were eligible in the systematic review; 29 trials evaluated pedometers, and 9 evaluated accelerometers or fitness trackers. Four studies did not provide amenable outcome data, leaving 34 trials (3793 participants) for the meta-analysis. Intervention vs comparator analysis showed a significant association of wearable tracker use with increased PA levels overall (standardized mean difference, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.46-0.97; I2 = 88%; 95% CI, 84.3%-90.8%; P < .001) in studies with short to medium follow-up for median of 15 (range, 12-52) weeks. Multivariable metaregression showed an association between increased PA levels and interventions that involved face-to-face consultations with facilitators (23 studies; β = -0.04; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.01), included men (23 studies; β = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.01-0.96), and assessed pedometer-based interventions (26 studies; β = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.02-0.32).Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, interventions that combined wearable activity trackers with health professional consultations were associated with significant improvements in PA levels among people with cardiometabolic conditions.

Project description:BackgroundThere are challenges for researchers and clinicians to select the most appropriate physical activity tool, and a balance between precision and feasibility is needed. Currently it is unclear which physical activity tool should be used to assess physical activity in Bronchiectasis. The aim of this research is to compare assessment methods (pedometer and IPAQ) to our criterion method (ActiGraph) for the measurement of physical activity dimensions in Bronchiectasis (BE), and to assess their feasibility and acceptability.MethodsPatients in this analysis were enrolled in a cross-sectional study. The ActiGraph and pedometer were worn for seven consecutive days and the IPAQ was completed for the same period. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 20 (IBM). Descriptive statistics were used; the percentage agreement between ActiGraph and the other measures were calculated using limits of agreement. Feedback about the feasibility of the activity monitors and the IPAQ was obtained.ResultsThere were 55 (22 male) data sets available. For step count there was no significant difference between the ActiGraph and Pedometer, however, total physical activity time (mins) as recorded by the ActiGraph was significantly higher than the pedometer (mean ± SD, 232 (75) vs. 63 (32)). Levels of agreement between the two devices was very good for step count (97% agreement); and variation in the levels of agreement were within accepted limits of ±2 standard deviations from the mean value. IPAQ reported more bouted- moderate - vigorous physical activity (MVPA) [mean, SD; 167(170) vs 6(9) mins/day], and significantly less sedentary time than ActiGraph [mean, SD; 362(115) vs 634(76) vmins/day]. There were low levels of agreement between the two tools (57% sedentary behaviour; 0% MVPA10+), with IPAQ under-reporting sedentary behaviour and over-reporting MVPA10+ compared to ActiGraph. The monitors were found to be feasible and acceptable by participants and researchers; while the IPAQ was accepta ble to use, most patients required assistance to complete it.ConclusionsAccurate measurement of physical activity is feasible in BE and will be valuable for future trials of therapeutic interventions. ActiGraph or pedometer could be used to measure simple daily step counts, but ActiGraph was superior as it measured intensity of physical activity and was a more precise measure of time spent walking. The IPAQ does not appear to represent an accurate measure of physical activity in this population.Trial registrationClinical Trials Registration Number NCT01569009 : Physical Activity in Bronchiectasis.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Compared with sighted individuals, people with visual impairment have a higher prevalence of chronic conditions and lower levels of physical activity. This review aims to systematically review physical activity interventions for those with a visual impairment and to assess their effectiveness. DESIGN:A systematic review of articles reporting physical activity interventions in visually impaired individuals was conducted. Medline, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, SPORTDiscus and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database were searched in August 2018. Meta-analyses were conducted on randomised controlled trials with the same outcome measure. SETTING:Most interventions were conducted in a group setting, with some including an at-home, self-directed component. PARTICIPANTS:Following identification of a recent systematic review of physical activity interventions in children, our review focused on adults aged 18 years and older with a visual impairment. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Outcomes included measures of balance, mobility, mental well-being (eg, quality of life), number of falls, muscle strength, flexibility and gait. RESULTS:Eighteen papers from 17 studies met inclusion criteria. Physical activity components include falls prevention and/or balance-based activities, walking, tai chi, Alexander Technique, Yoga, dance, aerobics and core stability training. Significant results in favour of the intervention were reported most commonly in measures of functional capacity (9/17 studies) and in falls/balance-related outcomes (7/13 studies). The studies identified were generally small and diverse in study design, and risk of bias was high across several categories for most studies. Meta-analyses indicated non-significant effects of the included interventions on the Timed Up and Go, Chair Sit Test and Berg Balance Scale. CONCLUSIONS:Physical activity interventions in individuals with visual impairment incorporating activities such as tai chi, Yoga and dance can have positive results, particularly in physical measures such as mobility and balance. However, when performing a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, the evidence for effectiveness is less clear. More studies with larger sample sizes, stronger designs and longer follow-up periods are needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42018103638.

Dataset Information

Accelerometer- and Pedometer-Based Physical Activity Interventions Among Adults With Cardiometabolic Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance

Objectives

Data sources

Study selection

Data extraction and synthesis

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Publications

Accelerometer- and Pedometer-Based Physical Activity Interventions Among Adults With Cardiometabolic Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets