Dataset Information

Reporting of Physical Activity Device Measurement and Analysis Protocols in Lifestyle Interventions.

ABSTRACT: This systematic review examined the extent to which lifestyle physical activity interventions that used wearable devices (eg, pedometers, accelerometers) reported on the length of device wear time requested in their protocols, criteria for analytic inclusion of data, and participant compliance with device use protocols. Literature were searches were conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, and PsychInfo. Studies were included if they were the main outcomes paper of a trial that reported on a randomized or quasi-randomized trial focused on increasing lifestyle physical activity and were published between January 1, 2006 and March 30, 2016. Titles and abstracts were screened by 2 independent reviewers; eligible full texts were retrieved and reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. A total of 104 studies used wearable devices (n = 57 pedometers, n = 47 accelerometers). Most studies (n = 65, 67.3%) asked participants to wear devices for 7 days. Almost half of the studies (n = 46, 44.2%) did not report minimum device wear time required for analytic inclusion of data, and variation existed among studies reporting these criteria. Most studies (n = 60, 57.7%) did not report average device wear time, or participant compliance with device wear. Overall, there was heterogeneity in reporting of physical activity device data. Refinement and streamlining of guidelines for device use, analysis, and reporting of data could improve comparability across studies.

SUBMITTER: Jake-Schoffman DE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8669894 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIndividuals with low socioeconomic status (SES) are generally less well reached through lifestyle interventions than individuals with higher SES. The aim of this study was to identify opportunities for adapting lifestyle interventions in such a way that they are more appealing for individuals with low SES. To this end, the study provides insight into perspectives of groups with different socioeconomic positions regarding their current eating and physical activity behaviour; triggers for lifestyle change; and ways to support lifestyle change.MethodsData were gathered in semi-structured focus group interviews among low SES (four groups) and high SES (five groups) adults. The group size varied between four and nine participants. The main themes discussed were perceptions and experiences of healthy eating, physical activity and lifestyle advice. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a thematic approach was used to analyse the data.ResultsIn general, three key topics were identified, namely: current lifestyle is logical for participants given their personal situation; lifestyle change is prompted by feedback from their body; and support for lifestyle change should include individually tailored advice and could profit from involving others. The perceptions of the low SES participants were generally comparable to the perceptions shared by the high SES participants. Some perceptions were, however, especially shared in the low SES groups. Low SES participants indicated that their current eating behaviour was sometimes affected by cost concerns. They seemed to be especially motivated to change their lifestyle when they experienced health complaints, but were rather hesitant to change their lifestyle for preventive purposes. Regarding support for lifestyle change, low SES participants preferred to receive advice in a group rather than on their own. For physical activities, groups should preferably consist of persons of the same age, gender or physical condition.ConclusionsTo motivate individuals with low SES to change their lifestyle, it may be useful to (visually) raise their awareness of their current weight or health status. Lifestyle interventions targeting individuals with low SES should take possible cost concerns into account and should harness the supportive effect of (peer) groups.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evaluation of physical activity interventions is vital to inform, and justify, evidence-based policy and practice to support population-wide changes in physical activity. Several evaluation frameworks and guidance documents have been developed to facilitate the evaluation and reporting of evaluation studies in public health. However, there is a lack of evidence about whether frameworks are being used to guide evaluation. There continues to be claims of poor and inconsistent reporting in evaluation studies. The aim of this review was to assess the use of evaluation frameworks and the quality of reporting of how they were applied within evaluation studies of physical activity interventions. OBJECTIVES:1. To identify whether evaluation frameworks are reported to have been used within evaluation studies of physical activity interventions, and which frameworks have been used. 2. To appraise the quality of reporting with regards to how evaluation frameworks have been used. METHOD:We developed a checklist of indicators to enable a critical appraisal of the use and reporting of different evaluation frameworks in evaluation studies. We conducted a systematic search and review of evaluation studies published between 2015 and the date of the search to appraise the use and reporting of evaluation frameworks. A narrative synthesis is provided. RESULTS:The review identified 292 evaluation studies of physical activity interventions, only 69 (23%) of these mentioned using an evaluation framework, and only 16 different frameworks were referred to. There was variation in the quality of reporting of framework use. 51 (74%) studies were identified as being explicitly based on the stated framework, however only 26 (38%) provided detailed descriptions consistently across all the checklist indicators. Details of adaptations and limitations in how frameworks were applied were less frequently reported. The review also highlighted variability in the reporting of intervention components. More consistent and precise reporting of framework and intervention components is needed. CONCLUSION:Evaluation frameworks can facilitate a more systematic evaluation report and we argue their limited use suggests missed opportunities to apply frameworks to guide evaluation and reporting in evaluation studies. Variability in the quality of reporting of framework use limits the comparability and transferability of evidence. Where a framework has been used, the checklist of indicators can be employed to facilitate the reporting of an evaluation study and to review the quality of an evaluation report.

Dataset Information

Reporting of Physical Activity Device Measurement and Analysis Protocols in Lifestyle Interventions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets