Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Research Foundation Flanders, Brussels, Belgium.
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 May 10;9(5):e26387. doi: 10.2196/26387.
"Push" components of mobile health interventions may be promising to create conscious awareness of habitual sedentary behavior; however, the effect of these components on the near-time, proximal outcome, being breaks in sedentary behavior immediately after receiving a push notification, is still unknown, especially in older adults.
The aims of this study are to examine if older adults break their sedentary behavior immediately after receiving personalized haptic feedback on prolonged sedentary behavior and if the percentage of breaks differs depending on the time of the day when the feedback is provided.
A total of 26 Flemish older adults (mean age 64.4 years, SD 3.8) wore a triaxial accelerometer (Activator, PAL Technologies Ltd) for 3 weeks. The accelerometer generated personalized haptic feedback by means of vibrations each time a participant sat for 30 uninterrupted minutes. Accelerometer data on sedentary behavior were used to estimate the proximal outcome, which was sedentary behavior breaks immediately (within 1, 3, and 5 minutes) after receiving personalized haptic feedback. Generalized estimating equations were used to investigate whether or not participants broke up their sedentary behavior immediately after receiving haptic feedback. A time-related variable was added to the model to investigate if the sedentary behavior breaks differed depending on the time of day.
A total of 2628 vibrations were provided to the participants during the 3-week intervention period. Of these 2628 vibrations, 379 (14.4%), 570 (21.7%), and 798 (30.4%) resulted in a sedentary behavior break within 1, 3 and 5 minutes, respectively. Although the 1-minute interval did not reveal significant differences in the percentage of breaks depending on the time at which the haptic feedback was provided, the 3- and 5-minute intervals did show significant differences in the percentage of breaks depending on the time at which the haptic feedback was provided. Concretely, the percentage of sedentary behavior breaks was significantly higher if personalized haptic feedback was provided between noon and 3 PM compared to if the feedback was provided between 6 and 9 AM (odds ratio 1.58, 95% CI 1.01-2.47, within 3 minutes; odds ratio 1.78, 95% CI 1.11-2.84, within 5 minutes).
The majority of haptic vibrations, especially those in the morning, did not result in a break in the sedentary behavior of older adults. As such, simply bringing habitual sedentary behavior into conscious awareness seems to be insufficient to target sedentary behavior. More research is needed to optimize push components in interventions aimed at the reduction of the sedentary behavior of older adults.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04003324; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04003324.
移动健康干预的“推动”因素可能有助于提高习惯性久坐行为的意识；然而，这些因素对久坐行为的即时、近端结果（即接收到推送通知后立即中断久坐行为）的影响尚不清楚，尤其是在老年人中。
本研究旨在检验老年人在接收到关于长时间久坐行为的个性化触觉反馈后是否会立即中断久坐行为，以及反馈提供时间是否会影响中断的百分比。
共有 26 名佛兰芒老年人（平均年龄 64.4 岁，标准差 3.8）佩戴三轴加速度计（Activator，PAL Technologies Ltd）3 周。加速度计通过每次参与者连续坐 30 分钟不中断时的振动来生成个性化触觉反馈。使用加速度计的久坐行为数据来估计近端结果，即接收到个性化触觉反馈后立即（1、3 和 5 分钟内）中断久坐行为。使用广义估计方程来检验参与者是否在接收到触觉反馈后立即中断久坐行为。在模型中添加了一个时间相关的变量，以检验久坐行为的中断是否取决于一天中的时间。
在 3 周的干预期间，向参与者提供了 2628 次振动。在这 2628 次振动中，分别有 379（14.4%）、570（21.7%）和 798（30.4%）在 1、3 和 5 分钟内导致了久坐行为的中断。尽管 1 分钟间隔没有显示出反馈提供时间对中断百分比的显著差异，但 3 分钟和 5 分钟间隔确实显示出反馈提供时间对中断百分比的显著差异。具体来说，如果个性化触觉反馈在中午至下午 3 点之间提供，与在上午 6 点至 9 点之间提供相比，久坐行为中断的百分比显著更高（3 分钟内的比值比 1.58，95%置信区间 1.01-2.47；5 分钟内的比值比 1.78，95%置信区间 1.11-2.84）。
大多数触觉振动，尤其是在早上的振动，并没有导致老年人久坐行为的中断。因此，仅仅将习惯性久坐行为纳入意识似乎不足以针对久坐行为。需要进一步研究以优化旨在减少老年人久坐行为的干预措施中的推动因素。
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04003324；https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04003324。
