RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Regular physical activity (PA) is a valued part of cystic fibrosis (CF) care. Although the accelerometer, SenseWear Armband (SWA), accurately measures habitual PA in CF, it is mostly used for research purposes. For the first time, we analyzed different methods of measuring PA in daily life by the use of smartphones and other electronic devices such as smartwatch and Fitbit. METHODS: Twenty-four stable adults with CF (mean age 37.5 ± 11.5SD yrs.; FEV1 58 ± 19% predicted, BMI 22.9 ± 3.2) were studied. Daily PA was monitored for seven consecutive days. All patients wore the accelerometer SWA and at the same time they monitored PA with the electronic device they used routinely. They were allocated into one of four arms according to their device: Smartwatch, Fitbit, Android smartphones and iOS smartphones. PA related measurements included: duration of PA, energy expenditure, number of steps. RESULTS: There was a good agreement between SWA and Fitbit for number of steps (p = 0.605) and energy expenditure (p = 0.143). iOS smartphones were similar to SWA in monitoring the number of steps (p = 0.911). Significant differences were found between SWA and both Smartwatch and Android smartphones. CONCLUSIONS: Fitbit and iOS smartphones seem to be a valuable approach to monitor daily PA. They provide a good performance to measure step number compared to SWA.
Asunto(s)
Fibrosis Quística/fisiopatología , Ejercicio Físico , Monitoreo Ambulatorio/instrumentación , Telemedicina , Acelerometría , Actividades Cotidianas , Adulto , Fibrosis Quística/psicología , Metabolismo Energético , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Proyectos Piloto , Pruebas de Función Respiratoria , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
The aim of this report is to assess whether the research issues priorities are perceived differently according to the Stakeholders (SH)'s individual knowledge of research topics and degree of training in biomedical research. Four groups of SH were enrolled in this study: 1. Skilled SH, specifically trained in biomedicine; 2. Unskilled untrained SH who responded to a written questionnaire in 2015; 3. SH who were trained for one year in a course delivered by professionals; 4. Untrained SH who responded to an online questionnaire in 2017. The large ranking order variability observed among groups addresses the question that the choices are markedly influenced by the SH's backgrounds. Such results emphasize the need to consider the education level and the delivery of ad hoc training activities by professionals to broaden the base of SH who may be considered qualified to transfer the Patient Centered Outcome Research principles into practice.