Firkin Cora J, Obrusnikova Iva, Koch Laura C
Department of Health Behavior and Nutrition Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA.
Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A8, Canada.
Healthcare (Basel). 2024 Sep 24;12(19):1912. doi: 10.3390/healthcare12191912.
: Methodologies for assessing behavior form the foundation of health promotion and disease prevention. Physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB) assessment methodologies have predominantly been developed for adults without an intellectual disability (ID), raising credibility concerns for adults with ID. The purpose was to synthesize the current state of assessment methodologies for quantifying PA and SB volume in the free-living setting for adults with an ID. : Following PRISMA guidelines, eleven databases were searched through December 2023, yielding 8174 records. Data were extracted in Covidence (v.2.0), obtaining quantified PA and SB volume and assessment methodology characteristics across data collection and analysis, including tool(s) and technique(s) used, preparatory actions taken, instructions provided, and behavioral strategies employed during data collection. : Of the 8174 articles screened, 91 met the inclusion criteria. Common metrics included minutes/hours per day/week and steps per day/week. Despite 80% of the studies using objective techniques, substantial variation existed across studies regarding wearable models, sampling frequency and epoch length settings, calibration protocols, wearable placements, and data processing techniques. Limited studies provided instructions that did not exclusively rely on spoken language. Behavioral strategies varied, including self-monitoring, providing assistance or supervision, administering questionnaires verbally, issuing reminders, and offering monetary incentives. : This review underscores the need for greater consistency and accessibility in PA and SB assessment methodology for adults with ID. Tailored preparation, instruction, and behavioral strategies may enhance assessment viability and suitability for adults with ID, with or without caregiver or researcher involvement in the free-living setting.
评估行为的方法构成了健康促进和疾病预防的基础。身体活动(PA)和久坐行为(SB)评估方法主要是为无智力残疾(ID)的成年人开发的,这引发了对有ID的成年人评估方法可信度的担忧。本研究旨在综合目前在自由生活环境中量化有ID的成年人PA和SB量的评估方法的现状。
遵循PRISMA指南,检索了截至2023年12月的11个数据库,共获得8174条记录。数据在Covidence(v.2.0)中提取,获取了数据收集和分析过程中量化的PA和SB量以及评估方法特征,包括使用的工具和技术、采取的准备措施、提供的说明以及数据收集期间采用的行为策略。
在筛选的8174篇文章中,91篇符合纳入标准。常见指标包括每天/每周的分钟数/小时数以及每天/每周的步数。尽管80%的研究使用了客观技术,但在可穿戴设备模型、采样频率和时段长度设置、校准方案、可穿戴设备放置位置以及数据处理技术等方面,不同研究之间存在很大差异。仅有少数研究提供了不完全依赖口头语言的说明。行为策略各不相同,包括自我监测、提供协助或监督、口头发放问卷、发出提醒以及提供金钱激励。
本综述强调,对于有ID的成年人,PA和SB评估方法需要更高的一致性和可及性。量身定制的准备、说明和行为策略可能会提高评估对有ID的成年人的可行性和适用性,无论在自由生活环境中是否有照顾者或研究人员参与。