Dataset Information

Sedentary Behaviour in Hospitalised Older People: A Scoping Review.

ABSTRACT: Background: Sedentary behaviour (SB) can delay hospitalised older adults' recovery from acute illness and injuries. Currently, there is no synthesis of evidence on SB among hospitalised older people. This scoping review aimed to identify and map existing literature on key aspects of SB among hospitalised older adults, including the prevalence, measurement and intervention strategies for SB and sedentary behaviour bouts (SBBs) as well as healthcare professionals, patients and carers' perspectives on interventions. Methods and analysis: Several electronic databases were searched between January 2001 and September 2020. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) framework was used to conduct this scoping review. Results: Out of 1824 articles, 21 were included comprising 16 observational studies, 3 randomised controlled trials, 1 comparative study, and 1 phase-1 dose-response study. The sample size ranged from 13 to 393, with all 1435 participants community-dwelling before hospitalisation. Only two studies focused on measuring SB and SBBs as a primary outcome, with others (n = 19) reporting SB and SBB as a sub-set of physical activity (PA). Older adults spent an average of 86.5%/day (20.8 h) sedentary. Most studies (n = 15 out of 21) measured SB and SBB using objective tools. Conclusion: Hospitalised older people spent most of their waking hours sedentary. Studies explicitly focused on SB and SBB are lacking, and the perspectives of patients, carers and healthcare professionals are not clarified. Future hospital-based studies should focus on interventions to reduce SB and SBB, and the perspectives of healthcare professionals, patients and carers' taken into account.

SUBMITTER: Jasper U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7765084 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sedentary Behaviour in Hospitalised Older People: A Scoping Review.

Jasper Unyime U Yadav Lalit L Dollard Joanne J Jadczak Agathe Daria AD Yu Solomon S Visvanathan Renuka R

International journal of environmental research and public health 20201214 24

<i>Background:</i> Sedentary behaviour (SB) can delay hospitalised older adults' recovery from acute illness and injuries. Currently, there is no synthesis of evidence on SB among hospitalised older people. This scoping review aimed to identify and map existing literature on key aspects of SB among hospitalised older adults, including the prevalence, measurement and intervention strategies for SB and sedentary behaviour bouts (SBBs) as well as healthcare professionals, patients and carers' persp ...[more]

PMID: 33327552

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The number of deaths per year attributed to non-communicable diseases is increasing in low- and middle-income countries, including Thailand. To facilitate the development of evidence-based public health programs and policies in Thailand, research on physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) is needed. The aims of this scoping review were to: (i) map all available evidence on PA and SB in Thailand; (ii) identify research gaps; and (iii) suggest directions for future research. METHODS:A systematic literature search was conducted through 10 bibliographic databases. Additional articles were identified through secondary searches of reference lists, websites of relevant Thai health organisations, Google, and Google Scholar. Studies written in Thai or English were screened independently by two authors and included if they presented quantitative or qualitative data relevant to public health research on PA and/or SB. RESULTS:Out of 25,007 screened articles, a total of 564 studies were included in the review. Most studies included PA only (80%), 6.7% included SB only, and 13.3% included both PA and SB. The most common research focus was correlates (58.9%), followed by outcomes of PA/SB (22.2%), prevalence of PA/SB (12.4%), and instrument validation (3.2%). Most PA/SB research was cross-sectional (69.3%), while interventions (19.7%) and longitudinal studies (2.8%) were less represented. Most studies (94%) used self-reports of PA/SB, and few (2.5%) used device-based measures. Both sexes were examined in most studies (82.5%). Adults were the main target population group (51.1%), followed by older adults (26.9%), adolescents (15.7%), and children (6.3%). Clinical populations were investigated in the context of PA/SB in a relatively large number of studies (15.3%), most frequently those with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and hypertension (22%, 21%, and 21% respectively). CONCLUSIONS:The number of Thai papers on PA published per year has been increasing, indicating a growing interest in this research area. More studies using population-representative samples are needed, particularly among children and adolescents, and investigating SB as a health risk factor. To provide stronger evidence on determinants and outcomes of PA/SB, longitudinal studies using standardised measures of PA and SB are required.

Project description:Aims and objectivesTo identify and compare frailty instruments used with hospitalised orthopaedic patients aged over 65.BackgroundFrailty predicts clinical events in orthopaedic patients aged over 65. However, the strengths and limitations of different approaches to measuring frailty in this population are rarely discussed. As such, a comprehensive review to address the gap is needed.DesignScoping review using Arksey and O'Malley framework.MethodsPubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and EMBASE databases were searched to identify studies published from 2006 to 2020 regarding frailty instruments in older orthopaedic patients. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses were followed.ResultsThe initial search resulted in 1,471 articles. After review against inclusion and exclusion criteria, a final set of 31 articles containing 15 unique frailty instruments were evaluated. Most of the articles were from Western countries. Fried's phenotype and Frailty Index were commonly used. The frailty index was mostly modified to measure frailty. In hip fracture, physical function items were frequently modified in the measurement of frailty. Trained physicians and nurses administered most frailty instruments. Frailty screening was commonly conducted at hospital admission and used to prognosticate both postoperative complications and hospital outcomes. Most instruments could be completed within 10 min. Reported psychometrics had acceptable reliability and validity.ConclusionMany reliable frailty measures have been used in the inpatient orthopaedic settings; however, evidence is still lacking for a gold standard frailty instrument. More research is needed to identify the best-performing measure. Frailty evaluation in patients with physical limitations is challenging with existing instruments. Clinical context, resources required and instrument quality are essential factors in selecting a frailty instrument.Relevance to clinical practiceMusculoskeletal symptoms in older patients may bias frailty assessment. Proactive frailty screening with valid and practical instruments is vital to strengthen preoperative risk stratification and improve post-surgical outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundThe evidence showing the ill health effects of prolonged sedentary behaviour (SB) is growing. Most studies of SB in older adults have relied on self-report measures of SB. However, SB is difficult for older adults to recall and objective measures that combine accelerometry with inclinometry are now available for more accurately assessing SB. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the validity and reliability of these accelerometers for the assessment of SB in older adults.MethodsEMBASE, PubMed and EBSCOhost databases were searched for articles published up to December 13, 2017. Articles were eligible if they: a) described reliability, calibration or validation studies of SB measurement in healthy, community-dwelling individuals, b) were published in English, Portuguese or Spanish, and c) were published or in press as journal articles in peer-reviewed journals.ResultsThe review identified 15 studies in 17 papers. Of the included studies, 11 assessed the ActiGraph accelerometer. Of these, three examined reliability only, seven (in eight papers) examined validity only and one (in two papers) examined both. The strongest evidence from the studies reviewed is from studies that assessed the validity of the ActiGraph. These studies indicate that analysis of the data using 60-s epochs and a vertical magnitude cut-point <?200 cpm or using 30- or 60-s epochs with a machine learning algorithm provides the most valid estimates of SB. Non-wear algorithms of 90+ consecutive zeros is also suggested for the ActiGraph.ConclusionsFew studies have examined the reliability and validity of accelerometers for measuring SB in older adults. Studies to date suggest that the criteria researchers use for classifying an epoch as sedentary instead of as non-wear time (e.g., the non-wear algorithm used) may need to be different for older adults than for younger adults. The required number of hours and days of wear for valid estimates of SB in older adults was not clear from studies to date. More older-adult-specific validation studies of accelerometers are needed, to inform future guidelines on the appropriate criteria to use for analysis of data from different accelerometer brands.Trial registrationPROSPERO ID# CRD42017080754 registered December 12, 2017.

Project description:BackgroundStroke survivors are often physically inactive as well as sedentary,and may sit for long periods of time each day. This increases cardiometabolic risk and has impacts on physical and other functions. Interventions to reduce or interrupt periods of sedentary time, as well as to increase physical activity after stroke, could reduce the risk of secondary cardiovascular events and mortality during life after stroke.ObjectivesTo determine whether interventions designed to reduce sedentary behaviour after stroke, or interventions with the potential to do so, can reduce the risk of death or secondary vascular events, modify cardiovascular risk, and reduce sedentary behaviour.Search methodsIn December 2019, we searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, and PEDro. We also searched registers of ongoing trials, screened reference lists, and contacted experts in the field.Selection criteriaRandomised trials comparing interventions to reduce sedentary time with usual care, no intervention, or waiting-list control, attention control, sham intervention or adjunct intervention. We also included interventions intended to fragment or interrupt periods of sedentary behaviour.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently selected studies and performed 'Risk of bias' assessments. We analyzed data using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence with the GRADE approach.Main resultsWe included 10 studies with 753 people with stroke. Five studies used physical activity interventions, four studies used a multicomponent lifestyle intervention, and one study used an intervention to reduce and interrupt sedentary behaviour. In all studies, the risk of bias was high or unclear in two or more domains. Nine studies had high risk of bias in at least one domain. The interventions did not increase or reduce deaths (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.03; 10 studies, 753 participants; low-certainty evidence), the incidence of recurrent cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.01; 10 studies, 753 participants; low-certainty evidence), the incidence of falls (and injuries) (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 10 studies, 753 participants; low-certainty evidence), or incidence of other adverse events (moderate-certainty evidence). Interventions did not increase or reduce the amount of sedentary behaviour time (mean difference (MD) +0.13 hours/day, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.68; 7 studies, 300 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were too few data to examine effects on patterns of sedentary behaviour. The effect of interventions on cardiometabolic risk factors allowed very limited meta-analysis.Authors' conclusionsSedentary behaviour research in stroke seems important, yet the evidence is currently incomplete, and we found no evidence for beneficial effects. Current World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend reducing the amount of sedentary time in people with disabilities, in general. The evidence is currently not strong enough to guide practice on how best to reduce sedentariness specifically in people with stroke. More high-quality randomised trials are needed, particularly involving participants with mobility limitations. Trials should include longer-term interventions specifically targeted at reducing time spent sedentary, risk factor outcomes, objective measures of sedentary behaviour (and physical activity), and long-term follow-up.

Dataset Information

Sedentary Behaviour in Hospitalised Older People: A Scoping Review.

Publications

Sedentary Behaviour in Hospitalised Older People: A Scoping Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets