ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: In older people with a chronic respiratory disease, we explored (i) usual Smartphone application (App) use, (ii) the time taken to download and use an App, and (iii) changes in self-efficacy for downloading an App after a single practice session. METHODS: Participants were invited to attend one or two separate assessment sessions (Part A and B). Those who attended Part A had data pertaining to their App usage over the previous week extracted from their Smartphone. Those who attended Part B were asked to download and use a pedometer App and "think out loud" during the task. Before and after the task, participants rated their self-efficacy for downloading an App using a Visual Analogue Scale (0-10). RESULTS: Twenty-seven participants (mean ± SD 74 ± 5 years) completed Part A. Commonly used Apps related to communication (e.g., texting; median [interquartile range] 15 [9-25] min/day) and interest (e.g., news; 14 [4-50] min/day). Fifteen participants completed Part B (mean ± SD 73 ± 7 years). The median time taken to download and use the App was 24 (22-37) min. The "think out loud" data converged into four domains: (i) low self-efficacy for using and learning Apps; (ii) reliance on others for help; (iii) unpleasant emotional responses; and (iv) challenges due to changes associated with longevity. Self-efficacy increased by 4 (95% confidence interval: 3-6). CONCLUSION: This population used Apps mainly to facilitate social connection. It took participants almost half an hour to download and use an App, but a single practice session improved self-efficacy.
ABSTRACT
ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the relative physical recovery and symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection between groups confirmed positive or negative to early strains of COVID-19.MethodsA prospective, longitudinal cohort study compared outcomes of metropolitan adults polymerase chain reaction-tested for COVID-19 between March and November 2020 in Western Australia. Control matching was attempted: inpatients (gender, age) and ambulatory clinic (gender, age, asthma, chronic pulmonary disease). One-year follow-up involved three repeated measures: physical function (grip strength and 1-min sit-to-stand) and patient-reported outcomes (Fatigue Severity Scale, modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale and Euroqol-5D-5L).ResultsThree hundred and forty-four participants were recruited (154 COVID+, age 54±18years, 75 females [49%]); 190 COVID-, age 52±16years, 67 females [35%]) prior to national vaccination roll-out. No between-group differences in physical function measures were evident at any time point. Fatigue (OR 6.62, 95% CI 2.74-15.97) and dyspnoea (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.14-4.30) were higher in the COVID+ group at second assessment (T2). On Euroqol-5D-5L, no between-group differences were evident in the physical function domains of self-care, mobility or usual activities at any time point. However, COVID+ participants were less likely to report an absence of anxiety or depression symptoms at T2 (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19-0.89).ConclusionsNeither statistical nor clinically meaningful differences in physical function were evident between COVID+ and COVID- participants to 12-months after acute illness. Symptoms of fatigue, dyspnoea, anxiety or depression were more prevalent in the COVID+ group til ~8months after illness with between-group differences no longer evident at 1 year.
ABSTRACT
In studies that have reported device-based measures of sedentary time (ST) in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), we explored if the monitor type and monitor wear time moderated the estimate of this measure. Five electronic databases were searched in January 2021. Studies were included if >70% of participants had stable COPD, and measures of ST (min/day) were collected using wearable technology. Meta-regression was used to examine the influence of moderators on ST, monitor type, and wear time. The studies identified were a total of 1153, and 36 had usable data for meta-analyses. The overall pooled estimate of ST (mean [95% CI]) was 524 min/day [482 to 566] with moderate heterogeneity among effect sizes (I2 = 42%). Monitor wear time, as well as the interaction of monitor wear time and monitor type, were moderators of ST (p < 0.001). The largest difference (−318 min; 95% CI [−212 to −424]) was seen between studies where participants wore a device without a thigh inclinometer for 24 h (and removed sleep during analysis) (675 min, 95% CI [589 to 752]) and studies where participants wore a device with a thigh inclinometer for 12 h only (356 min; 95% CI [284 to 430]). In people with COPD, the monitor wear time and the interaction of the monitor wear time and the monitor type moderated the estimate of ST.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: In people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the authors sought to explore (1) the effect of any intervention on the time spent in sedentary behavior and, (2) which behavior change techniques (BCTs) have shown promise in achieving this lifestyle target. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched on January 7, 2021. Studies were included if they (1) recruited people with stable COPD, (2) applied an intervention ≥4 weeks, and (3) measure sedentary time (ST) before and after the intervention period using wearable technology or via self-reports of television viewing. The primary analyses were restricted to data reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). All BCTs described during the intervention periods were mapped using an established taxonomy. RESULTS: Of the 1142 records identified, 8 were RCTs, of which 6 had exercise training as the intervention. Random effects meta-analysis of data from 4 of these 6 trials that implemented exercise training showed no clear effect on ST (mean difference, -3.4 minutes; 95% CI, -27.9-21.0 minutes). Commonly mapped BCTs in the majority of studies included action planning and instruction on how to perform the behavior. Of all the BCTs mapped, 25% were reported with sufficient information to be graded "beyond reasonable doubt." CONCLUSION: Despite robust evidence that exercise training improves functional outcomes and reduces dyspnea, this intervention does not seem to translate into behavior change. The primary analysis demonstrated that, in adults with COPD, the effect of exercise training on ST was, at best, uncertain. The BCTs embedded within the interventions were often poorly reported. Future RCTs are required that appropriately report BCT and ST to improve the precision of our estimate of the effect exercise training may have on ST, and BCTs used during intervention periods need to be reported with greater specificity. IMPACT: In people with COPD, there is currently limited evidence to suggest that exercise training will reduce sedentary behavior. To move this area of research forward, BCTs embedded within these interventions need to be described with greater precision. LAY SUMMARY: In people with COPD, interventions such as exercise training do not seem to produce a reduction in sedentary behavior (ie, time spent sitting or lying down) during daily life. The techniques used to help people change their sedentary behavior were poorly reported, so we do not know what exactly was done and therefore cannot know what may have worked well.