Suchergebnisse

Abstract

Background
Multiples of resting metabolic rate (RMR) are often used to classify physical activity intensity, a concept known as the Metabolic Equivalent of Task (MET). However, the METs metrics may misclassify physical activity intensity in older adults because of age related changes in RMR and maximal aerobic capacity (V̇O2max). This study aimed to 1) compare classifications of activity intensity by estimated (METsestimated) and measured (METsmeasured) METs and 2) compare physical activity classified by absolute (METsmeasured) versus relative intensity (%V̇O2Reserve) in older adults.


Methods
Ninety-eight adults aged 75-90 years participated in the study. RMR and V̇O2 during sitting, standing, daily activities and 6-minute-walking-test were measured. V̇O2Reserve was defined as the difference between V̇O2max and RMR. Moderate and vigorous intensity was classified as 3 and 6 METs and 40% and 60% of V̇O2Reserve, respectively. Paired t-tests and a confusion matrix were used to investigate aim 1 and 2, respectively.


Results
METsmeasured was 24% lower than the standard 1 MET of 3.5 ml O2·min-1·kg-1. METsestimated underestimated the intensity during daily and walking activities when compared to METsmeasured. Nevertheless, when comparing METsmeasured to percentages of V̇O2Reserve, a mismatch was shown for moderate intensity in 47-67% of the participants during daily activities, and 21% of the participants during self-selected gait speed.


Conclusion
Applying METsestimated for older adults leads to potential underestimation of physical activity intensity, suggesting that current classification metrics should be revised for older adults. V̇O2Reserve is a candidate metric for establishing precise physical activity intensity cut-points for older adults.

Introduction: Promoting physical activity (PA) and reducing sedentary behaviour (SB) may exert beneficial effects on the older adult population, improving behavioural, functional, health and psychosocial outcomes in addition to reducing health, social care and personal costs. This paper describes the planned economic evaluation of SITLESS, a multicountry three-armed pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) which aims to assess the short-term and long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention on SB and PA in community-dwelling older adults, based on exercise referral schemes enhanced by a group intervention providing self-management strategies to encourage lifestyle change. Methods and analysis: A within-trial economic evaluation and long-term model from both a National Health Service/personal social services perspective and a broader societal perspective will be undertaken alongside the SITLESS multinational RCT. Healthcare costs (hospitalisations, accident and emergency visits, appointment with health professionals) and social care costs (eg, community care) will be included in the economic evaluation. For the cost-utility analysis, quality-adjusted life-years will be measured using the EQ-5D-5L and capability well-being measured using the ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people (ICECAP-O) questionnaire. Other effectiveness outcomes (health related, behavioural, functional) will be incorporated into a cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-consequence analysis. The multinational nature of this RCT implies a hierarchical structure of the data and unobserved heterogeneity between clusters that needs to be adequately modelled with appropriate statistical and econometric techniques. In addition, a long-term population health economic model will be developed and will synthesise and extrapolate within-trial data with additional data extracted from the literature linking PA and SB outcomes with longer term health states. Methods guidance for population health economic evaluation will be adopted including the use of a long-time horizon, 1.5% discount rate for costs and benefits, cost consequence analysis framework and a multisector perspective. Ethics and dissemination: The study design was approved by the ethics and research committee of each intervention site: the Ethics and Research Committee of Ramon Llull University (reference number: 1314001P) (Fundació Blanquerna, Spain), the Regional Committees on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark (reference number: S-20150186) (University of Southern Denmark, Denmark), Office for Research Ethics Committees in Northern Ireland (ORECNI reference number: 16/NI/0185) (Queen's University of Belfast) and the Ethical Review Board of Ulm University (reference number: 354/15) (Ulm, Germany). Participation is voluntary and all participants will be asked to sign informed consent before the start of the study. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 634 270. This article reflects only the authors' view and the Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. The findings of the study will be disseminated to different target groups (academia, policymakers, end users) through different means following the national ethical guidelines and the dissemination regulation of the Horizon 2020 funding agency. Use of the EuroQol was registered with the EuroQol Group in 2016. Use of the ICECAP-O was registered with the University of Birmingham in March 2017. Trial registration number: NCT02629666; Pre-results.

Introduction Promoting physical activity (PA) and reducing sedentary behaviour (SB) may exert beneficial effects on the older adult population, improving behavioural, functional, health and psychosocial outcomes in addition to reducing health, social care and personal costs. This paper describes the planned economic evaluation of SITLESS, a multicountry three-armed pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) which aims to assess the short-term and long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention on SB and PA in community-dwelling older adults, based on exercise referral schemes enhanced by a group intervention providing self-management strategies to encourage lifestyle change. Methods and analysis A within-trial economic evaluation and long-term model from both a National Health Service/personal social services perspective and a broader societal perspective will be undertaken alongside the SITLESS multinational RCT. Healthcare costs (hospitalisations, accident and emergency visits, appointment with health professionals) and social care costs (eg, community care) will be included in the economic evaluation. For the cost-utility analysis, quality-adjusted life-years will be measured using the EQ-5D-5L and capability well-being measured using the ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people (ICECAP-O) questionnaire. Other effectiveness outcomes (health related, behavioural, functional) will be incorporated into a cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-consequence analysis. The multinational nature of this RCT implies a hierarchical structure of the data and unobserved heterogeneity between clusters that needs to be adequately modelled with appropriate statistical and econometric techniques. In addition, a long-term population health economic model will be developed and will synthesise and extrapolate within-trial data with additional data extracted from the literature linking PA and SB outcomes with longer term health states. Methods guidance for population health economic evaluation will be adopted including the use of a long-time horizon, 1.5% discount rate for costs and benefits, cost consequence analysis framework and a multisector perspective. Ethics and dissemination The study design was approved by the ethics and research committee of each intervention site: the Ethics and Research Committee of Ramon Llull University (reference number: 1314001P) (Fundació Blanquerna, Spain), the Regional Committees on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark (reference number: S-20150186) (University of Southern Denmark, Denmark), Office for Research Ethics Committees in Northern Ireland (ORECNI reference number: 16/NI/0185) (Queen's University of Belfast) and the Ethical Review Board of Ulm University (reference number: 354/15) (Ulm, Germany). Participation is voluntary and all participants will be asked to sign informed consent before the start of the study. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 634 270. This article reflects only the authors' view and the Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. The findings of the study will be disseminated to different target groups (academia, policymakers, end users) through different means following the national ethical guidelines and the dissemination regulation of the Horizon 2020 funding agency. Use of the EuroQol was registered with the EuroQol Group in 2016. Use of the ICECAP-O was registered with the University of Birmingham in March 2017. Trial registration number NCT02629666; Pre-results.

Introduction: Promoting physical activity (PA) and reducing sedentary behaviour (SB) may exert beneficial effects on the older adult population, improving behavioural, functional, health and psychosocial outcomes in addition to reducing health, social care and personal costs. This paper describes the planned economic evaluation of SITLESS, a multicountry three-armed pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) which aims to assess the short-term and long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention on SB and PA in community-dwelling older adults, based on exercise referral schemes enhanced by a group intervention providing self-management strategies to encourage lifestyle change. Methods and analysis: A within-trial economic evaluation and long-term model from both a National Health Service/personal social services perspective and a broader societal perspective will be undertaken alongside the SITLESS multinational RCT. Healthcare costs (hospitalisations, accident and emergency visits, appointment with health professionals) and social care costs (eg, community care) will be included in the economic evaluation. For the cost-utility analysis, quality-adjusted life-years will be measured using the EQ-5D-5L and capability well-being measured using the ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people (ICECAP-O) questionnaire. Other effectiveness outcomes (health related, behavioural, functional) will be incorporated into a cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-consequence analysis. The multinational nature of this RCT implies a hierarchical structure of the data and unobserved heterogeneity between clusters that needs to be adequately modelled with appropriate statistical and econometric techniques. In addition, a long-term population health economic model will be developed and will synthesise and extrapolate within-trial data with additional data extracted from the literature linking PA and SB outcomes with longer term health states. Methods guidance for population health economic evaluation will be adopted including the use of a long-time horizon, 1.5% discount rate for costs and benefits, cost consequence analysis framework and a multisector perspective. Ethics and dissemination: The study design was approved by the ethics and research committee of each intervention site: the Ethics and Research Committee of Ramon Llull University (reference number: 1314001P) (Fundació Blanquerna, Spain), the Regional Committees on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark (reference number: S-20150186) (University of Southern Denmark, Denmark), Office for Research Ethics Committees in Northern Ireland (ORECNI reference number: 16/NI/0185) (Queen's University of Belfast) and the Ethical Review Board of Ulm University (reference number: 354/15) (Ulm, Germany). Participation is voluntary and all participants will be asked to sign informed consent before the start of the study. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 634 270. This article reflects only the authors' view and the Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. The findings of the study will be disseminated to different target groups (academia, policymakers, end users) through different means following the national ethical guidelines and the dissemination regulation of the Horizon 2020 funding agency. Use of the EuroQol was registered with the EuroQol Group in 2016. Use of the ICECAP-O was registered with the University of Birmingham in March 2017.

Article in press ; Dynamic sitting, such as fidgeting and desk work, might be associated with health, but remains difficult toidentify out of accelerometry data. We examined, in a laboratory study, whether dynamic sitting can beidentified out of triaxial activity counts. Among 18 participants (56% men, 27.3 ± 6.5 years), up to 236 countsper minute were recorded in the anteroposterior and mediolateral axes during dynamic sitting using a hip-worn accelerometer. Subsequently, we examined in 621 participants (38% men, 80.0 ± 4.7 years) from theAGES-Reykjavik Study whether dynamic sitting was associated with cardio-metabolic health. Compared toparticipants who recorded the fewest dynamic sitting minutes (Q1), those with more dynamic sittingminutes had a lower BMI (Q2=−1.39 (95%CI =−2.33;–0.46); Q3=−1.87 (−2.82;–0.92); Q4=−3.38 (−4.32;–2.45)), a smaller waist circumference (Q2=−2.95 (−5.44;–0.46); Q3=−3.47 (−6.01;–0.93); Q4=−8.21 (−10.72;–5.71)), and a lower odds for the metabolic syndrome (Q2= 0.74 [0.45;1.20] Q3= 0.58 [0.36;0.95]; Q4=0.36[0.22;0.59]). Our findings suggest that dynamic sitting might be identified using accelerometry and that thisbehaviour was associated with health. This might be important given the large amounts of time peoplespend sitting. Future studies with a focus on validation, causation and physiological pathways are needed tofurther examine the possible relevance of dynamic sitting. ; This work was supported by the National Institute on Aging;National Institutes of Health [N01-AG-12100];FP7 People: Marie-Curie Actions (FP7- PEOPLE-2011-CIG) [PCIG09-GA-2011-293621];Icelandic Heart Association; Icelandic Parliament. ; Peer reviewed

To access publisher's full text version of this article, please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field or click on the hyperlink at the top of the page marked Download ; Dynamic sitting, such as fidgeting and desk work, might be associated with health, but remains difficult to identify out of accelerometry data. We examined, in a laboratory study, whether dynamic sitting can be identified out of triaxial activity counts. Among 18 participants (56% men, 27.3 ± 6.5 years), up to 236 counts per minute were recorded in the anteroposterior and mediolateral axes during dynamic sitting using a hip-worn accelerometer. Subsequently, we examined in 621 participants (38% men, 80.0 ± 4.7 years) from the AGES-Reykjavik Study whether dynamic sitting was associated with cardio-metabolic health. Compared to participants who recorded the fewest dynamic sitting minutes (Q1), those with more dynamic sitting minutes had a lower BMI (Q2 = -1.39 (95%CI = -2.33;-0.46); Q3 = -1.87 (-2.82;-0.92); Q4 = -3.38 (-4.32;-2.45)), a smaller waist circumference (Q2 = -2.95 (-5.44;-0.46); Q3 = -3.47 (-6.01;-0.93); Q4 = -8.21 (-10.72;-5.71)), and a lower odds for the metabolic syndrome (Q2 = 0.74 [0.45;1.20] Q3 = 0.58 [0.36;0.95]; Q4 = 0.36 [0.22;0.59]). Our findings suggest that dynamic sitting might be identified using accelerometry and that this behaviour was associated with health. This might be important given the large amounts of time people spend sitting. Future studies with a focus on validation, causation and physiological pathways are needed to further examine the possible relevance of dynamic sitting. ; National Institute on Aging National Institutes of Health FP7 People: Marie-Curie Actions (FP7-PEOPLE-2011-CIG) Icelandic Heart Association Icelandic Parliament