Effects of sport or physical recreation for adults with physical or intellectual disabilities: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of sport or physical recreation on participation, mobility and quality of life for adults living with disabilities. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Six databases searched from inception to May 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials including adults living with a physical or intellectual disability, comparing sport or physical recreation to non-active control. RESULTS: Seventy-four trials (n=2954; mean age 55 years) were included. Most (70) trials included people with physical disabilities, none evaluated sport and the most common physical recreation activities tested were traditional Chinese exercise (35%), yoga (27%) and dance (18%). Mean frequency and duration was 65 min/session, two times per week for 13 weeks. Most (86%) interventions were led by people with experience and/or training in the recreation activity, and only 37% reported leader experience and/or training working with people with disabilities. Participation was measured as attendance (mean 81%, 30 intervention groups). Physical recreation improved mobility (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.38, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.69, n=469) and walking endurance (mean difference (MD) 40.3 m, 95% CI 19.5 to 61.1, n=801) with low certainty evidence and balance (Berg Balance Scale, range 0-56 points; MD 3.4 points, 95% CI 2.3 to 4.4, n=906) and quality of life (physical health; SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.72, n=468) with very low certainty evidence, but not walking speed (MD 0.03 m/s, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.11, n=486). CONCLUSION: Physical recreation may confer multiple benefits for people living with disabilities regardless of the activity chosen, thus offering a potentially enjoyable and scalable strategy to increase physical activity. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018104379.

Physical Activity Preferences of People Living with Brain Injury: Formative Qualitative Research to Develop a Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The World Health Organization physical activity guidelines for people living with disability do not consider the needs of people living with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury. This paper describes the qualitative co-development of a discrete choice experiment survey to inform the adaption of these guidelines by identifying the physical activity preferences of people living with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury in Australia. METHODS: The research team comprised researchers, people with lived experience of traumatic brain injury and health professionals with expertise in traumatic brain injury. We followed a four-stage process: (1) identification of key constructs and initial expression of attributes, (2) critique and refinement of attributes, (3) prioritisation of attributes and refinement of levels and (4) testing and refining language, format and comprehensibility. Data collection included deliberative dialogue, focus groups and think-aloud interviews with 22 purposively sampled people living with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury. Strategies were used to support inclusive participation. Analysis employed qualitative description and framework methods. RESULTS: This formative process resulted in discarding, merging, renaming and reconceptualising attributes and levels. Attributes were reduced from an initial list of 17 to six: (1) Type of activity, (2) Out-of-pocket cost, (3) Travel time, (4) Who with, (5) Facilitated by and (6) Accessibility of setting. Confusing terminology and cumbersome features of the survey instrument were also revised. Challenges included purposive recruitment, reducing diverse stakeholder views to a few attributes, finding the right language and navigating the complexity of discrete choice experiment scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: This formative co-development process significantly improved the relevance and comprehensibility of the discrete choice experiment survey tool. This process may be applicable in other discrete choice experiment studies.

Implementing digital devices to increase mobility training for people receiving inpatient rehabilitation: protocol for a feasibility hybrid type II randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: People with mobility limitations can benefit from rehabilitation programs incorporating intensive, repetitive, and task-specific exercises using digital devices such as virtual reality gaming systems, tablet and smartphone applications, and wearable devices. The Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) rehabilitation trial (n = 300) showed improvements in mobility in people using these types of digital devices in addition to their usual rehabilitation care when the intervention was provided by an additional study-funded physiotherapist. However, it is not clear if this intervention can be implemented by hospital physiotherapists with a usual clinical load. The AMOUNT Implementation trial aims to explore the feasibility of conducting a large-scale implementation trial. METHODS: A pragmatic, assessor blinded, feasibility hybrid type II randomized controlled trial will be undertaken at a public hospital in Australia. There will be two phases. Phase I (Implementation phase) will involve implementing the digital devices into physiotherapy practice. Physiotherapists from the rehabilitation ward will receive a multifaceted implementation strategy guided by the Capabilities, Opportunities, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) theoretical model. The implementation strategy includes identifying and training a clinical champion; providing digital devices and education and training; facilitating use of the devices through clinical reasoning sessions and journal clubs; and audit and feedback of exercise dosage documentation. Phase II (Trial phase) will involve randomising 30 eligible inpatients from the same ward into either usual care or usual care plus an additional 30 min or more of exercises using digital devices. This intervention will be provided by the physiotherapists who took part in the implementation phase. We will collect data on feasibility, implementation, and patient-level clinical outcomes. The three primary outcome measures are the extent to which physiotherapists document the dosage of exercises provided to participants (feasibility criteria: exercise practice sheets complete for ≥85% of all participants); ability to recruit participants; and fidelity to the protocol of using digital devices to prescribe exercises (feasibility criteria: average of ≥ 30mins per day for > 50% intervention participants). DISCUSSION: This feasibility study will provide important information to guide the planning and conduct of a future large-scale implementation trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry; ACTRN12621000938808; registered 19/07/2021. Trial sponsor: Prince of Wales Hospital. 320-346 Barker Street, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia. PROTOCOL VERSION: 6.2 7th April 2021.

The effect of physical activity on health outcomes in people with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury: a rapid systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) released the first global physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines for children and adults living with disability. The evidence informing the guidelines though is not specific to people living with traumatic brain injury (TBI), but rather comes from other disabling conditions such as Parkinson's disease, and stroke. There remains a clear lack of direct evidence of the effects of physical activity for people living with TBI. The objective of this rapid review was to identify direct evidence of the effect of physical activity on health outcomes in people with moderate-to-severe TBI to inform adaptation of the WHO physical activity guidelines into clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a rapid systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, including people of any age with moderate-to-severe TBI, investigating physical activity interventions compared to either usual care, a physical activity intervention with different parameters, or a non-physical activity intervention. Four databases (CENTRAL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, Ovid MEDLINE) were searched from inception to October 8, 2021. The primary outcomes were physical function, cognition, and quality of life. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were included incorporating 812 participants (36% females, majority working-age adults, time post-TBI in studies ranged from 56 days (median) to 16.6 years (mean)). A range of physical activity interventions were evaluated in rehabilitation (n = 12 studies), community (n = 8) and home (n = 3) settings. We pooled data from the end of the intervention for eight outcomes. Participation in a virtual reality physical activity intervention improved mobility, assessed by the Community Balance and Mobility Scale (range 0 to 96; higher score indicates better mobility) more than standard balance training (two studies, 80 participants, Mean Difference = 2.78, 95% CI 1.40 to 4.16; low certainty evidence). There was uncertainty of effect for the remaining outcomes, limited by small sample sizes, diverse comparators and a wide range of outcome measures. CONCLUSION: This review consolidates the current evidence base for the prescription of physical activity for people with moderate-to-severe TBI. There remains a pressing need for further rigorous research in order to develop practice guidelines to support clinical decision-making when prescribing physical activity in this population.

Economic evaluation of digitally enabled aged and neurological rehabilitation care in the Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the trial-based cost-effectiveness of the addition of a tailored digitally enabled exercise intervention to usual care shown to be clinically effective in improving mobility in the Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) rehabilitation trial compared to usual care alone. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: 300 people receiving inpatient aged and neurological rehabilitation were randomized to the intervention (n = 149) or usual care control group (n = 151). MAIN MEASURES: Incremental cost effectiveness ratios were calculated for the additional costs per additional person demonstrating a meaningful improvement in mobility (3-point in Short Physical Performance Battery) and quality-adjusted life years gained at 6 months (primary analysis). The joint probability distribution of costs and outcomes was examined using bootstrapping. RESULTS: The mean cost saving for the intervention group at 6 months was AU$2286 (95% Bootstrapped cost CI: -$11,190 to $6410) per participant; 68% and 67% of bootstraps showed the intervention to be dominant (i.e. more effective and cost saving) for mobility and quality-adjusted life years, respectively. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective considering a willingness to pay threshold of AU$50,000 per additional person with a meaningful improvement in mobility or quality-adjusted life year gained was 93% and 77%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The AMOUNT intervention had a high probability of being cost-effective if decision makers are willing to pay AU$50,000 per meaningful improvement in mobility or per quality-adjusted life year gained, and a moderate probability of being cost-saving and effective considering both outcomes at 6 months post randomization.

Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) rehabilitation trial - description of device use and physiotherapy support in the post-hospital phase.

PURPOSE: To describe device use and physiotherapy support in the post-hospital phase of the AMOUNT rehabilitation trial. METHODS: We performed an evaluation of the support required for device use by participants randomised to the intervention group who received digitally-enabled rehabilitation in the post-hospital phase (n = 144). Intervention, additional to standard rehabilitation, utilised eight digital devices (virtual reality videogames, activity monitors and handheld computer devices) to improve mobility and increase physical activity. Participants were taught to use devices during inpatient rehabilitation and were then discharged home to use the devices for the remainder of the 6-month trial. Physiotherapist-participant contact occurred every 1-2 weeks using a health coaching approach, including technology support when required. Intervention datasheets were audited, and descriptive statistics used to report device use and support required. RESULTS: Participants (mean (SD) age 70 (18) years; 49% neurological health conditions) used an average of 2 (SD 1) devices (98% used an activity monitor). Eight percent of physiotherapy contact included technology support with 30% provided remotely. Support addressed 845 issues categorised under initial set-up and instruction (27%), education and training (31%), maintenance (23%) and trouble-shooting (19%). CONCLUSION: Digital devices can be used for home-based rehabilitation, but ongoing technology support is essential. Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12614000936628IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONDigital device use at home to support long-term management of health conditions is likely to become increasingly important as the need for rehabilitation increases and rehabilitation resources become more limited.Technology support for set-up and ongoing device use is a critical enabler of home-based digital interventions.Health professionals delivering home-based digital interventions require sufficient training and equipment and may need to vary the mode (e.g., home visit vs. telephone or video conference) depending on the technology support required.

Digitally enabled aged care and neurological rehabilitation to enhance outcomes with Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) in Australia: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Digitally enabled rehabilitation may lead to better outcomes but has not been tested in large pragmatic trials. We aimed to evaluate a tailored prescription of affordable digital devices in addition to usual care for people with mobility limitations admitted to aged care and neurological rehabilitation. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a pragmatic, outcome-assessor-blinded, parallel-group randomised trial in 3 Australian hospitals in Sydney and Adelaide recruiting adults 18 to 101 years old with mobility limitations undertaking aged care and neurological inpatient rehabilitation. Both the intervention and control groups received usual multidisciplinary inpatient and post-hospital rehabilitation care as determined by the treating rehabilitation clinicians. In addition to usual care, the intervention group used devices to target mobility and physical activity problems, individually prescribed by a physiotherapist according to an intervention protocol, including virtual reality video games, activity monitors, and handheld computer devices for 6 months in hospital and at home. Co-primary outcomes were mobility (performance-based Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB]; continuous version; range 0 to 3; higher score indicates better mobility) and upright time as a proxy measure of physical activity (proportion of the day upright measured with activPAL) at 6 months. The dataset was analysed using intention-to-treat principles. The trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000936628). Between 22 September 2014 and 10 November 2016, 300 patients (mean age 74 years, SD 14; 50% female; 54% neurological condition causing activity limitation) were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 149) or control (n = 151) using a secure online database (REDCap) to achieve allocation concealment. Six-month assessments were completed by 258 participants (129 intervention, 129 control). Intervention participants received on average 12 (SD 11) supervised inpatient sessions using 4 (SD 1) different devices and 15 (SD 5) physiotherapy contacts supporting device use after hospital discharge. Changes in mobility scores were higher in the intervention group compared to the control group from baseline (SPPB [continuous, 0-3] mean [SD]: intervention group, 1.5 [0.7]; control group, 1.5 [0.8]) to 6 months (SPPB [continuous, 0-3] mean [SD]: intervention group, 2.3 [0.6]; control group, 2.1 [0.8]; mean between-group difference 0.2 points, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.3; p = 0.006). However, there was no evidence of a difference between groups for upright time at 6 months (mean [SD] proportion of the day spent upright at 6 months: intervention group, 18.2 [9.8]; control group, 18.4 [10.2]; mean between-group difference -0.2, 95% CI -2.7 to 2.3; p = 0.87). Scores were higher in the intervention group compared to the control group across most secondary mobility outcomes, but there was no evidence of a difference between groups for most other secondary outcomes including self-reported balance confidence and quality of life. No adverse events were reported in the intervention group. Thirteen participants died while in the trial (intervention group: 9; control group: 4) due to unrelated causes, and there was no evidence of a difference between groups in fall rates (unadjusted incidence rate ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.83; p = 0.43). Study limitations include 15%-19% loss to follow-up at 6 months on the co-primary outcomes, as anticipated; the number of secondary outcome measures in our trial, which may increase the risk of a type I error; and potential low statistical power to demonstrate significant between-group differences on important secondary patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed improved mobility in people with a wide range of health conditions making use of digitally enabled rehabilitation, whereas time spent upright was not impacted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Register; ACTRN12614000936628.

Validity of Different Activity Monitors to Count Steps in an Inpatient Rehabilitation Setting.

BACKGROUND: Commonly used activity monitors have been shown to be accurate in counting steps in active people; however, further validation is needed in slower walking populations. OBJECTIVES: To determine the validity of activity monitors for measuring step counts in rehabilitation inpatients compared with visually observed step counts. To explore the influence of gait parameters, activity monitor position, and use of walkers on activity monitor accuracy. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-six inpatients admitted to a rehabilitation unit with an average walking speed of 0.4 m/s (SD 0.2) wore 16 activity monitors (7 different devices in different positions) simultaneously during 6-minute and 6-m walks. The number of steps taken during the tests was also counted by a physical therapist. Gait parameters were assessed using the GAITRite system. To analyze the influence of different gait parameters, the percentage accuracy for each monitor was graphed against various gait parameters for each activity monitor. RESULTS: The StepWatch, Fitbit One worn on the ankle and the ActivPAL showed excellent agreement with observed step count (ICC 2,1 0.98; 0.92; 0.78 respectively). Other devices (Fitbit Charge, Fitbit One worn on hip, G-Sensor, Garmin Vivofit, Actigraph) showed poor agreement with the observed step count (ICC 2,1 0.12-0.40). Percentage agreement with observed step count was highest for the StepWatch (mean 98%). The StepWatch and the Fitbit One worn on the ankle maintained accuracy in individuals who walked more slowly and with shorter strides but other devices were less accurate in these individuals. LIMITATIONS: There were small numbers of participants for some gait parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The StepWatch showed the highest accuracy and closest agreement with observed step count. This device can be confidently used by researchers for accurate measurement of step counts in inpatient rehabilitation in individuals who walk slowly. If immediate feedback is desired, the Fitbit One when worn on the ankle would be the best choice for this population.

Effect of affordable technology on physical activity levels and mobility outcomes in rehabilitation: a protocol for the Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) rehabilitation trial.

INTRODUCTION: People with mobility limitations can benefit from rehabilitation programmes that provide a high dose of exercise. However, since providing a high dose of exercise is logistically challenging and resource-intensive, people in rehabilitation spend most of the day inactive. This trial aims to evaluate the effect of the addition of affordable technology to usual care on physical activity and mobility in people with mobility limitations admitted to inpatient aged and neurological rehabilitation units compared to usual care alone. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pragmatic, assessor blinded, parallel-group randomised trial recruiting 300 consenting rehabilitation patients with reduced mobility will be conducted. Participants will be individually randomised to intervention or control groups. The intervention group will receive technology-based exercise to target mobility and physical activity problems for 6 months. The technology will include the use of video and computer games/exercises and tablet applications as well as activity monitors. The control group will not receive any additional intervention and both groups will receive usual inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation care over the 6-month study period. The coprimary outcomes will be objectively assessed physical activity (proportion of the day spent upright) and mobility (Short Physical Performance Battery) at 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include: self-reported and objectively assessed physical activity, mobility, cognition, activity performance and participation, utility-based quality of life, balance confidence, technology self-efficacy, falls and service utilisation. Linear models will assess the effect of group allocation for each continuously scored outcome measure with baseline scores entered as a covariate. Fall rates between groups will be compared using negative binomial regression. Primary analyses will be preplanned, conducted while masked to group allocation and use an intention-to-treat approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by the relevant Human Research Ethics Committees and the results will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12614000936628. Pre-results.

Validity of the Fitbit activity tracker for measuring steps in community-dwelling older adults.

BACKGROUND: Commercially available activity monitors, such as the Fitbit, may encourage physical activity. However, the accuracy of the Fitbit in older adults remains unknown. This study aimed to determine (1) the criterion validity of Fitbit step counts compared to visual count and ActiGraph accelerometer step counts and (2) the accuracy of ActiGraph step counts compared to visual count in community-dwelling older people. METHODS: Thirty-two community-dwelling adults aged over 60 wore Fitbit and ActiGraph devices simultaneously during a 2 min walk test (2MWT) and then during waking hours over a 7-day period. A physiotherapist counted the steps taken during the 2MWT. RESULTS: There was excellent agreement between Fitbit and visually counted steps (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1)=0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.94) from the 2MWT, and good agreement between Fitbit and ActiGraph (ICC2,1=0.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.82), and between ActiGraph and visually counted steps (ICC2,1=0.60, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.79). There was excellent agreement between the Fitbit and ActiGraph in average steps/day over 7 days (ICC2,1=0.94, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97). Percentage agreement was closest for Fitbit steps compared to visual count (mean 0%, SD 4%) and least for Fitbit average steps/day compared to the ActiGraph (mean 13%, SD 25%). CONCLUSIONS: The Fitbit accurately tracked steps during the 2MWT, but the ActiGraph appeared to underestimate steps. There was strong agreement between Fitbit and ActiGraph counted steps. The Fitbit tracker is sufficiently accurate to be used among community-dwelling older adults to monitor and give feedback on step counts.

Prognosis of physical function following ankle fracture: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the prognosis of physical function following ankle fracture. BACKGROUND: Information about the course of recovery of physical function after ankle fracture is essential for patient care and health care policy. The existing data have not previously been included in a meta-analysis. METHODS: Studies were identified using searches of electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, AMED, SPORTDiscus) and gray literature to September 2012. Studies of people with traumatic ankle fracture were included. Two reviewers independently screened references for inclusion, then extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. The outcome of interest was physical function (physical activity and activity limitation). Outcomes were converted to a common 100-point scale, on which higher scores indicated better outcomes. Meta-regression was conducted using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies (37 articles) were included. Adults with ankle fracture, present with significant activity limitation in the short term (mean at 1 month, 31.9; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.8, 45.1), recovered markedly but incompletely in the short to medium term (mean at 6 months, 78.3; 95% CI: 70.1, 85.1), and showed little further improvement in the long term (mean at 24 months, 86.6; 95% CI: 78.2, 95.0). Studies with older participants and predominantly male participants tended to report worse functional outcomes. CONCLUSION: Adults typically experience a rapid initial recovery of physical function after ankle fracture (approximately 80% function at 6 months), but, on average, recovery remains incomplete 24 months after injury. PROSPERO registration number: 42012002979. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognosis, level 2a.