Search

Purpose:We investigated whether active video gaming (AVG) could bring about regular, enjoyable, physical exercise in children treated for brain tumours, what level of physical activity could be reached and if the children’s physical functioning improved. Methods:Thirteen children, aged 7–17 years, were randomised to either AVG or waiting-list. After 10–12 weeks they crossed-over. Weekly Internet coaching sessions were used to sustain motivation and evaluate enjoyment. Energy expenditure (EE) levels were measured as Metabolic Equivalent of Task (MET), using a multisensory activity monitor. Single-blinded assessments of physical functioning were done, using the Bruininks–Osteretsky Test of Motor Performance, second edition, evaluating participants before and after the intervention period, as well as comparing the randomisation groups after the first period. Results:All patients completed the study. AVG sessions (mean duration 47 minutes) were performed on 72% of all days. Mean EE level during AVG sessions was 3.0 MET, corresponding to moderate physical activity. The Body Coordination score improved by 15% (p = 0.021) over the intervention period. Conclusions:In this group of childhood brain tumour survivors, home-based AVG, supported by a coach, was a feasible, enjoyable and moderately intense form of exercise that improved Body Coordination.Implications for RehabilitationChildhood brain tumour survivors frequently have cognitive problems, inferior physical functioning and are less physically active compared to their healthy peers.Active video gaming (AVG), supported by Internet coaching, is a feasible home-based intervention in children treated for brain tumours, promoting enjoyable, regular physical exercise of moderate intensity.In this pilot study, AVG with Nintendo Wii improved Body Coordination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims:Privileged access interviewing (PAI) has traditionally been used to reach illicit drug users and other ‘hidden’ populations. How PAI data compare to other self-reported data have seldom been discussed. We compare data from patients in opioid substitution treatment (OST), gathered through PAI and researcher interviews, respectively, to investigate whether PAIs and researchers are reaching comparable populations, and whether differences in answers are due to the sensitive nature of the questions. Methods:Structured interviews were conducted with 368 patients from nine OST clinics in three Swedish cities. 237 interviews were carried out by researchers, and 131 by nine PAIs (OST patients). Data were analyzed with χ2test, Fisher’s exact test,t-test and logistic regression analysis. Results:PAIs and researchers recruited comparable populations, with few differences in terms of individual, treatment and social factors. However, self-reported behaviors revealed several significant differences. Alcohol consumption and drinking to intoxication was more commonly reported among patients interviewed through PAI (p < 0.001 andp = 0.001, respectively). Furthermore, the PAI group reported selling medication (p < 0.001 last month,p < 0.001 during treatment episode) and snorting buprenorphine (p = 0.010 last month,p = 0.001 during treatment episode) more frequently. Conclusions:PAI is a useful method in studies of illicit drug use and a valuable complement to more traditional interviewing methods. Specifically as regards revelations of a sensitive or controversial nature, PAI seems to produce different results than researcher interviews, and possibly also more truthful responses. PAI may have considerable potential as a data-gathering method also when studying other, more easily accessible populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]