Home-based Circuit Training and Community Walking for Intermittent Claudication.

BACKGROUND: Supervised exercise training is recommended for people with peripheral artery disease (PAD), yet it remains underutilized. Home-based exercise programs (HBEPs) are a potential alternative. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a full scale trial of a 12-week HBEP for people living with symptomatic PAD. METHODS: In a randomized feasibility trial, patients with intermittent claudication were allocated to either an HBEP or a nonexercise control. The HBEP group was given a Fitbit to use during a 12-week exercise program comprising of personalized step goals and a resistance-based circuit to be undertaken at home twice weekly. The primary outcome was feasibility, assessed via eligibility, recruitment, attrition, tolerability, and adherence. Acceptability was assessed via semistructured interviews. Secondary analysis was undertaken to determine the feasibility of collecting clinical outcome data. RESULTS: 188 people were screened, 133 were eligible (70.7%), 30 were recruited (22.6%) and one withdrew (3.33%). Mean adherence to the daily step goal was 53.5% (range = 29.8-90.5%), and 58.6% of prescribed circuits were completed of which 56.4% were at the desired intensity. Six adverse events were recorded, 3 of which were related to study involvement. No significant differences were observed in exploratory outcomes. Small clinically important differences were seen in walking speed and pain-free treadmill walking distance which should be confirmed or refuted in a larger trial. CONCLUSIONS: The HBEP was feasible and well tolerated, with successful recruitment and minimal attrition. The intervention was acceptable, with walking seen as more enjoyable than circuit exercise. The WALKSTRONG program may be suitable for those who will not, or cannot, take part in supervised exercise outside of the home.

Validating the Fitbit Charge 4© wearable activity monitor for use in physical activity interventions.

OBJECTIVES: Commercially available wearable activity monitors can promote physical activity behaviour. Clinical trials typically quantify physical activity with research grade activity monitors prior to testing interventions utilising commercially available wearable activity monitors aimed at increasing step count. Therefore, it is important to test the agreement of these two types of activity monitors. OBJECTIVES: Observational. METHODS: Thirty adults (20-65 years, n = 19 females) were provided a Fitbit Charge 4©. To determine reliability using an intraclass correlation coefficient, two, one-minute bouts of treadmill walking were performed at a self-selected pace. Subsequently, participants wore both an ActiGraph wGT3X-BT and the Fitbit for seven days. To determine agreement, statistical equivalence and the mean absolute percentage error were calculated and represented graphically with a Bland-Altman plot. Ordinary least products regression was performed to identify fixed or proportional bias. RESULTS: The Fitbit showed 'good' step count reliability on the treadmill (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.75, 95 % CI = 0.53-0.87, p < 0.001). In free-living however, it overestimated step count when compared to the ActiGraph wGT3X-BT (mean absolute percentage error = 26.02 % ±â€¯14.63). Measurements did not fall within the ± 10 % equivalence region and proportional bias was apparent (slope 95 % CI = 1.09-1.35). CONCLUSIONS: The Fitbit Charge 4© is reliable when measuring step count on a treadmill. However, there is an overestimation of daily steps in free-living environments which may falsely indicate compliance with physical activity recommendations.