Clinimetrics of the Lanarkshire Oximetry Index for patients with leg ulcers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ankle Brachial Pressure Index (ABPI) measurement has long been considered the gold standard of vascular assessment for people with lower limb ulceration. Despite this, only around 15% of patients in the United Kingdom who require an ABPI measurement undergo the assessment. The Lanarkshire Oximetry Index (LOI) is a cheaper and arguably more accessible approach to vascular assessment and was initially proposed as an alternative to the ABPI in 2000. No synthesis of evidence related to the LOI has been performed since its introduction into the literature. Primary studies were sought to determine the clinimetric properties of the LOI and its level of agreement with ABPI assessments. Systematic searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, BNI, ProQuest Health and Medicine, Science Direct, Google Scholar and the British Library (online search) were conducted. Reference lists of identified studies were also reviewed to identify additional studies. Three primary studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting data from 307 patients and 584 limbs assessed using both the LOI and ABPI. All three studies reported fair to moderate kappa values for interrater reliability (κ = 0.290-0.747) and statistically significant positive correlation coefficients (r = 0.37, p < 0.001 in two studies) between the LOI and ABPI. The combined data from the three studies indicated a sensitivity of 52% (41.78-62.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]) and specificity of 96.08% (93.4-97.9, 95% CI) for the LOI using the ABPI as a reference. Additional data are required to indicate the safety of the LOI in practice. Data are also required to determine if the LOI is more acceptable to clinicians compared to the ABPI and whether there are any barriers/enablers to its implementation in practice. Given the relatively low specificity of the LOI, it may be beneficial to combine measurement of the LOI with a subjective clinical risk assessment tool to improve the sensitivity of this alternative approach to vascular assessment.

Participant and workplace champion experiences of an intervention designed to reduce sitting time in desk-based workers: SMART work & life.

BACKGROUND: A cluster randomised controlled trial demonstrated the effectiveness of the SMART Work & Life (SWAL) behaviour change intervention, with and without a height-adjustable desk, for reducing sitting time in desk-based workers. Staff within organisations volunteered to be trained to facilitate delivery of the SWAL intervention and act as workplace champions. This paper presents the experiences of these champions on the training and intervention delivery, and from participants on their intervention participation. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative feedback from workplace champions on their training session was collected. Participants provided quantitative feedback via questionnaires at 3 and 12 month follow-up on the intervention strategies (education, group catch ups, sitting less challenges, self-monitoring and prompts, and the height-adjustable desk [SWAL plus desk group only]). Interviews and focus groups were also conducted at 12 month follow-up with workplace champions and participants respectively to gather more detailed feedback. Transcripts were uploaded to NVivo and the constant comparative approach informed the analysis of the interviews and focus groups. RESULTS: Workplace champions rated the training highly with mean scores ranging from 5.3/6 to 5.7/6 for the eight parts. Most participants felt the education increased their awareness of the health consequences of high levels of sitting (SWAL: 90.7%; SWAL plus desk: 88.2%) and motivated them to change their sitting time (SWAL: 77.5%; SWAL plus desk: 85.77%). A high percentage of participants (70%) reported finding the group catch up session helpful and worthwhile. However, focus groups highlighted mixed responses to the group catch-up sessions, sitting less challenges and self-monitoring intervention components. Participants in the SWAL plus desk group felt that having a height-adjustable desk was key in changing their behaviour, with intrinsic as well as time based factors reported as key influences on the height-adjustable desk usage. In both intervention groups, participants reported a range of benefits from the intervention including more energy, less fatigue, an increase in focus, alertness, productivity and concentration as well as less musculoskeletal problems (SWAL plus desk group only). Work-related, interpersonal, personal attributes, physical office environment and physical barriers were identified as barriers when trying to sit less and move more. CONCLUSIONS: Workplace champion and participant feedback on the intervention was largely positive but it is clear that different behaviour change strategies worked for different people indicating that a 'one size fits all' approach may not be appropriate for this type of intervention. The SWAL intervention could be tested in a broader range of organisations following a few minor adaptations based on the champion and participant feedback. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISCRCTN registry (ISRCTN11618007).

A multicomponent intervention to reduce daily sitting time in office workers: the SMART Work & Life three-arm cluster RCT.

Background: Office workers spend 70-85% of their time at work sitting. High levels of sitting have been linked to poor physiological and psychological health. Evidence shows the need for fully powered randomised controlled trials, with long-term follow-up, to test the effectiveness of interventions to reduce sitting time. Objective: Our objective was to test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the SMART Work & Life intervention, delivered with and without a height-adjustable workstation, compared with usual practice at 12-month follow-up. Design: A three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting: Councils in England. Participants: Office workers. Intervention: SMART Work & Life is a multicomponent intervention that includes behaviour change strategies, delivered by workplace champions. Clusters were randomised to (1) the SMART Work & Life intervention, (2) the SMART Work & Life intervention with a height-adjustable workstation (i.e. SMART Work & Life plus desk) or (3) a control group (i.e. usual practice). Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 12 months. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was device-assessed daily sitting time compared with usual practice at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included sitting, standing, stepping time, physical activity, adiposity, blood pressure, biochemical measures, musculoskeletal issues, psychosocial variables, work-related health, diet and sleep. Cost-effectiveness and process evaluation data were collected. Results: A total of 78 clusters (756 participants) were randomised [control, 26 clusters (n = 267); SMART Work & Life only, 27 clusters (n = 249); SMART Work & Life plus desk, 25 clusters (n = 240)]. At 12 months, significant differences between groups were found in daily sitting time, with participants in the SMART Work & Life-only and SMART Work & Life plus desk arms sitting 22.2 minutes per day (97.5% confidence interval -38.8 to -5.7 minutes/day; p = 0.003) and 63.7 minutes per day (97.5% confidence interval -80.0 to -47.4 minutes/day; p < 0.001), respectively, less than the control group. Participants in the SMART Work & Life plus desk arm sat 41.7 minutes per day (95% confidence interval -56.3 to -27.0 minutes/day; p < 0.001) less than participants in the SMART Work & Life-only arm. Sitting time was largely replaced by standing time, and changes in daily behaviour were driven by changes during work hours on workdays. Behaviour changes observed at 12 months were similar to 3 months. At 12 months, small improvements were seen for stress, well-being and vigour in both intervention groups, and for pain in the lower extremity and social norms in the SMART Work & Life plus desk group. Results from the process evaluation supported these findings, with participants reporting feeling more energised, alert, focused and productive. The process evaluation also showed that participants viewed the intervention positively; however, the extent of engagement varied across clusters. The average cost of SMART Work & Life only and SMART Work & Life plus desk was £80.59 and £228.31 per participant, respectively. Within trial, SMART Work & Life only had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,091 per quality-adjusted life-year, with SMART Work & Life plus desk being dominated. Over a lifetime, SMART Work & Life only and SMART Work & Life plus desk had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £4985 and £13,378 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. Limitations: The study was carried out in one sector, limiting generalisability. Conclusions: The SMART Work & Life intervention, provided with and without a height-adjustable workstation, was successful in changing sitting time. Future work: There is a need for longer-term follow-up, as well as follow-up within different organisations. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11618007.

Office workers spend a large proportion of their day sitting. High levels of sitting have been linked to diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and some cancers. The SMART Work & Life intervention is designed to reduce office workers' sitting time inside and outside work. The SMART Work & Life intervention involves organisational, environmental, group and individual strategies to encourage a reduction in sitting time and was designed to be delivered with and without a height-adjustable workstation (which allows the user to switch between sitting and standing while working). To test whether or not the SMART Work & Life intervention worked, we recruited 756 office workers from councils in Leicester/Leicestershire, Greater Manchester and Liverpool, UK. Participants were from 78 office groups. One-third of the participants received the intervention, one-third received the intervention with a height-adjustable workstation and one-third were a control group (and carried on as usual). Workplace champions in each office group were given training and resources to deliver the intervention. Data were collected at the start of the study, with follow-up measurements at 3 and 12 months. We measured sitting time using a small device worn on the thigh and collected data on weight, body fat, blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol levels. We asked participants about their health and work and spoke to participants to find out what they thought of the intervention. Our results showed that participants who received the intervention without workstation sat for 22 minutes less per day, and participants who received the intervention with workstation sat for 64 minutes less per day, than participants in the control group. Levels of stress, well-being, vigour (i.e. personal and emotional energy and cognitive liveliness) and pain in the lower extremity appeared to improve in the intervention groups. Participants viewed the intervention positively and reported several benefits, such as feeling more energised, alert, focused and productive; however, the extent to which participants engaged with the intervention varied across groups.

Physical Activity Assessed by Wrist and Thigh Worn Accelerometry and Associations with Cardiometabolic Health.

Physical activity is increasingly being captured by accelerometers worn on different body locations. The aim of this study was to examine the associations between physical activity volume (average acceleration), intensity (intensity gradient) and cardiometabolic health when assessed by a thigh-worn and wrist-worn accelerometer. A sample of 659 office workers wore an Axivity AX3 on the non-dominant wrist and an activPAL3 micro on the right thigh concurrently for 24 h a day for 8 days. An average acceleration (proxy for physical activity volume) and intensity gradient (intensity distribution) were calculated from both devices using the open-source raw accelerometer processing software GGIR. Clustered cardiometabolic risk (CMR) was calculated using markers of cardiometabolic health, including waist circumference, triglycerides, HDL-cholesterol, mean arterial pressure and fasting glucose. Linear regression analysis assessed the associations between physical activity volume and intensity gradient with cardiometabolic health. Physical activity volume derived from the thigh-worn activPAL and the wrist-worn Axivity were beneficially associated with CMR and the majority of individual health markers, but associations only remained significant after adjusting for physical activity intensity in the thigh-worn activPAL. Physical activity intensity was associated with CMR score and individual health markers when derived from the wrist-worn Axivity, and these associations were independent of volume. Associations between cardiometabolic health and physical activity volume were similarly captured by the thigh-worn activPAL and the wrist-worn Axivity. However, only the wrist-worn Axivity captured aspects of the intensity distribution associated with cardiometabolic health. This may relate to the reduced range of accelerations detected by the thigh-worn activPAL.

The Cost-Effectiveness of the SMART Work & Life Intervention for Reducing Sitting Time.

Sedentary behaviours continue to increase and are associated with heightened risks of morbidity and mortality. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of SMART Work & Life (SWAL), an intervention designed to reduce sitting time inside and outside of work, both with (SWAL-desk) and without (SWAL-only) a height-adjustable workstation compared to usual practice (control) for UK office workers. Health outcomes were assessed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and costs in pound sterling (2019-2020). Discounted costs and QALYs were estimated using regression methods with multiply imputed data from the SMART Work & Life trial. Absenteeism, productivity and wellbeing measures were also evaluated. The average cost of SWAL-desk was £228.31 and SWAL-only £80.59 per office worker. Within the trial, SWAL-only was more effective and costly compared to control (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER): £12,091 per QALY) while SWAL-desk was dominated (least effective and most costly). However, over a lifetime horizon, both SWAL-only and SWAL-desk were more effective and more costly than control. Comparing SWAL-only to control generated an ICER of £4985 per QALY. SWAL-desk was more effective and costly than SWAL-only, generating an ICER of £13,378 per QALY. Findings were sensitive to various worker, intervention, and extrapolation-related factors. Based on a lifetime horizon, SWAL interventions appear cost-effective for office-workers conditional on worker characteristics, intervention cost and longer-term maintenance in sitting time reductions.

Effectiveness of an intervention for reducing sitting time and improving health in office workers: three arm cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention, with and without a height adjustable desk, on daily sitting time, and to investigate the relative effectiveness of the two interventions, and the effectiveness of both interventions on physical behaviours and physical, biochemical, psychological, and work related health and performance outcomes. DESIGN: Cluster three arm randomised controlled trial with follow-up at three and 12 months. SETTING: Local government councils in Leicester, Liverpool, and Greater Manchester, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 78 clusters including 756 desk based employees in defined offices, departments, or teams from two councils in Leicester, three in Greater Manchester, and one in Liverpool. INTERVENTIONS: Clusters were randomised to one of three conditions: the SMART Work and Life (SWAL) intervention, the SWAL intervention with a height adjustable desk (SWAL plus desk), or control (usual practice). MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was daily sitting time, assessed by accelerometry, at 12 month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were accelerometer assessed sitting, prolonged sitting, standing and stepping time, and physical activity calculated over any valid day, work hours, workdays, and non-workdays, self-reported lifestyle behaviours, musculoskeletal problems, cardiometabolic health markers, work related health and performance, fatigue, and psychological measures. RESULTS: Mean age of participants was 44.7 years, 72.4% (n=547) were women, and 74.9% (n=566) were white. Daily sitting time at 12 months was significantly lower in the intervention groups (SWAL -22.2 min/day, 95% confidence interval -38.8 to -5.7 min/day, P=0.003; SWAL plus desk -63.7 min/day, -80.1 to -47.4 min/day, P<0.001) compared with the control group. The SWAL plus desk intervention was found to be more effective than SWAL at changing sitting time (-41.7 min/day, -56.3 to -27.0 min/day, P<0.001). Favourable differences in sitting and prolonged sitting time at three and 12 month follow-ups for both intervention groups and for standing time for the SWAL plus desk group were observed during work hours and on workdays. Both intervention groups were associated with small improvements in stress, wellbeing, and vigour, and the SWAL plus desk group was associated with improvements in pain in the lower extremity, social norms for sitting and standing at work, and support. CONCLUSIONS: Both SWAL and SWAL plus desk were associated with a reduction in sitting time, although the addition of a height adjustable desk was found to be threefold more effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN11618007.

Defining Continuous Walking Events in Free-Living Environments: Mind the Gap.

In free-living environments, continuous walking can be challenging to achieve without encountering interruptions, making it difficult to define a continuous walking event. While limited research has been conducted to define a continuous walking event that accounts for interruptions, no method has considered the intensity change caused by these interruptions, which is crucial for achieving the associated health outcomes. A sample of 24 staff members at the University of Salford were recruited. The participants wore an accelerometer-based device (activPAL™) for seven days continuously and completed an activity diary, to explore a novel methodological approach of combining short interruptions of time between walking events based on an average walking cadence. The definition of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) used was a minimum walking cadence of either 76, 100, or 109 steps/min. The average daily time spent in MVPA increased from 75.2 ± 32.6 min to 86.5 ± 37.4 min using the 76 steps/min, 48.3 ± 29.5 min to 53.0 ± 33.3 min using the 100 steps/min threshold, and 31.4 ± 20.5 min to 33.9 ± 22.6 min using the 109 steps/min threshold; the difference before grouping and after grouping was statistically significant (p < 0.001). This novel method will enable future analyses of the associations between continuous walking and health-related outcomes.

The BaSICS (Baby Skin Integrity Comparison Survey) study: A prospective experimental study using maternal observations to report the effect of baby wipes on the incidence of irritant diaper dermatitis in infants, from birth to eight weeks of age.

BACKGROUND: Baby wipes have been shown to be safe and effective in maintaining skin integrity when compared to the use of water alone. However, no previous study has compared different formulations of wipe. The aim of the BaSICS study was to identify any differences in incidence of irritant diaper dermatitis (IDD) in infants assigned to three different brands of wipe, all marketed as suitable for neonates, but which contained varying numbers of ingredients. METHODS: Women were recruited during the prenatal period. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of three brands of wipe for use during the first eight weeks following childbirth. All participants received the same nappies. Participants reported their infant's skin integrity on a scale of 1-5 daily using a bespoke smartphone application. Analysis of effect of brand on clinically significant IDD (score 3 or more) incidence was conducted using a negative binomial generalised linear model, controlling for possible confounders at baseline. Analysts were blind to brand of wipe. RESULTS: Of 737 women enrolled, 15 were excluded (admitted to neonatal intensive care, premature or other infant health issues). Of the 722 eligible babies, 698 (97%) remained in the study for the full 8-week duration, 24.6% of whom had IDD at some point during the study. Mothers using the brand with the fewest ingredients reported fewer days of clinically significant nappy rash (score≥3) than participants using the two other brands (p = 0.002 and p < 0.001). Severe IDD (grades 4 and 5) was rare (2.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Rarity of severe IDD suggested that sensitive formula baby wipes are safe when used in cleansing babies from birth to eight weeks during nappy changes. The brand with fewest ingredients had significantly fewer days of clinically significant IDD. Daily observations recorded on a smartphone application proved to be a highly acceptable method of obtaining real-time data on IDD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was not designed or registered as a clinical trial as no intervention in normal patterns of infant care took place. Mothers who had already decided to use disposable nappies and a baby wipe product agreed to observe and report on their infants' skin condition; in return they received a 9-week supply of free nappies and wipes.

Quantifying sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit transitions in free-living environments using the activPAL thigh-worn activity monitor.

PURPOSE: Standing up, sitting down and walking require considerable effort and coordination, which are crucial indicators to rehabilitation (e.g. stroke), and in older populations may indicate the onset of frailty and physical and cognitive decline. Currently, there are few reports robustly quantifying sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit transitions in free-living environments. The aim of this study was to identify and quantify these transitions using the peak velocity of sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit transitions to determine if these velocities were different in a healthy cohort and a mobility-impaired population. METHODS: Free-living sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit acceleration data were recorded from 21 healthy volunteers and 34 stroke survivors using activPAL3™ monitors over a one-week period. Thigh inclination velocity was calculated from these accelerometer data. Maximum velocities were compared between populations. RESULTS: A total of 10,299 and 11,392 sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit transitions were recorded in healthy volunteers and stroke survivors, respectively. Healthy volunteers had significantly higher overall mean peak velocities for both transitions compared with stroke survivors [70.7°/s ± 52.2 versus 44.2°/s ± 28.0 for sit-to-stand, P < 0.001 and 74.7°/s ± 51.8 versus 46.0°/s ± 31.9 for stand-to-sit; P < 0.001]. Mean peak velocity of transition was associated with increased variation in peak velocity across both groups. CONCLUSION: There were significant differences in the mean peak velocity of sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit transitions between the groups. Variation in an individual's mean peak velocity may be associated with the ability to perform these transitions. This method could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions following injury such as stroke, as well as monitor decline in functional ability.

Sedentary Time and Physical Activity Surveillance Through Accelerometer Pooling in Four European Countries.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to pool, harmonise and re-analyse national accelerometer data from adults in four European countries in order to describe population levels of sedentary time and physical inactivity. METHODS: Five cross-sectional studies were included from England, Portugal, Norway and Sweden. ActiGraph accelerometer count data were centrally processed using the same algorithms. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to study the associations of sedentary time and physical inactivity with sex, age, weight status and educational level, in both the pooled sample and the separate study samples. RESULTS: Data from 9509 participants were used. On average, participants were sedentary for 530 min/day, and accumulated 36 min/day of moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity. Twenty-three percent accumulated more than 10 h of sedentary time/day, and 72% did not meet the physical activity recommendations. Nine percent of all participants were classified as high sedentary and low active. Participants from Norway showed the highest levels of sedentary time, while participants from England were the least physically active. Age and weight status were positively associated with sedentary time and not meeting the physical activity recommendations. Men and higher-educated people were more likely to be highly sedentary, while women and lower-educated people were more likely to be inactive. CONCLUSIONS: We found high levels of sedentary time and physical inactivity in four European countries. Older people and obese people were most likely to display these behaviours and thus deserve special attention in interventions and policy planning. In order to monitor these behaviours, accelerometer-based cross-European surveillance is recommended.

Empirically derived cut-points for sedentary behaviour: are we sitting differently?

Sedentary behaviour (SB) is associated with a number of adverse health outcomes. Studies that have used ActiGraph monitors to define sedentary time tend to use a threshold of <100 counts per minute (cpm) for classifying SB; however, this cut-point was not empirically derived for adults. It is not known whether ActiGraph cut-points for SB differ depending on the context in which it occurs. We aimed to: (1) empirically derive an optimal threshold for classifying SB, using the cpm output from the ActiGraph GT3X+, compared to the sedentary classification from the activPAL3™; and (2) ascertain whether this varied by day of the week and in working time versus non-working time. A convenience sample of 30 office-based university employees (females (66.67%); age 40.47 ± 10.95 years; BMI 23.93 ± 2.46 kg m-2) wore the ActiGraph GT3X+ and activPAL3™ devices simultaneously for seven days. Data were downloaded in 1 min epochs and non-wear time was removed. Generalised estimating equations were used to make minute by minute comparisons of sedentary time from the two devices, using sedentary minutes (when all 60 s were classified as sitting/lying) from the activPAL3™ as the criterion measure. After data reduction participants provided on average 11 h 27 min of data per day. The derived cut-points from the models were significantly higher on a Saturday (97 cpm) compared to weekdays (60 cpm) and Sunday (57 cpm). Derived cpm for sedentary time during working time were significantly lower compared to non-working time (35 (95%CI 30-41) versus 73 (54-113)). Compared to the 100 cpm and 150 cpm thresholds, the empirically derived cut-points were not significantly different in terms of area-under-the-curve, but had lower mean bias for working and non-working times. Accelerometer cut-points for SB can depend on day and also domain, suggesting that the nature of sitting differs depending on the context in which sedentary time is accrued.