Search

The assessment of physical activity in healthy populations and in those with chronic diseases is challenging. The aim of this systematic review was to identify whether available activity monitors (AM) have been appropriately validated for use in assessing physical activity in these groups. Following a systematic literature search we found 134 papers meeting the inclusion criteria; 40 conducted in a field setting (validation against doubly labelled water), 86 in a laboratory setting (validation against a metabolic cart, metabolic chamber) and 8 in a field and laboratory setting. Correlation coefficients between AM outcomes and energy expenditure (EE) by the criterion method (doubly labelled water and metabolic cart/chamber) and percentage mean differences between EE estimation from the monitor and EE measurement by the criterion method were extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to pool the results across studies where possible. Types of devices were compared using meta-regression analyses. Most validation studies had been performed in healthy adults (n = 118), with few carried out in patients with chronic diseases (n = 16). For total EE, correlation coefficients were statistically significantly lower in uniaxial compared to multisensor devices. For active EE, correlations were slightly but not significantly lower in uniaxial compared to triaxial and multisensor devices. Uniaxial devices tended to underestimate TEE (-12.07 (95%CI; -18.28 to -5.85) %) compared to triaxial (-6.85 (95%CI; -18.20 to 4.49) %, p = 0.37) and were statistically significantly less accurate than multisensor devices (-3.64 (95%CI; -8.97 to 1.70) %, p<0.001). TEE was underestimated during slow walking speeds in 69% of the lab validation studies compared to 37%, 30% and 37% of the studies during intermediate, fast walking speed and running, respectively. The high level of heterogeneity in the validation studies is only partly explained by the type of activity monitor and the activity monitor outcome. Triaxial and multisensor devices tend to be more valid monitors. Since activity monitors are less accurate at slow walking speeds and information about validated activity monitors in chronic disease populations is lacking, proper validation studies in these populations are needed prior to their inclusion in clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In recent years, there have been several studies, using a wide variety of methods, aimed at developing quality indicators for palliative care. In this Quality Indicators for Palliative Care study (Q-PAC study) we have applied a scientifically rigorous method to develop a comprehensive and valid quality indicator set which can contribute to a standardized method for use in other countries. Methods and design: Firstly, an extensive literature review identified existing international quality indicators and relevant themes for measuring quality in palliative care. Secondly, the most relevant of these were selected by an expert panel. Thirdly, those prioritized by the experts were scored by a second multidisciplinary expert panel for usability and relevance, in keeping with the RAND/UCLA-method, combining evidence with consensus among stakeholders. This panel included carers and policymakers as well as patients and next-of-kin. Fourthly, the draft set was tested and evaluated in practice for usability and feasibility; the indicators were then translated into questionnaires presented to patients, next-of-kin and care providers. To encourage the acceptance and use of the indicators, stakeholders, including national palliative care organizations, were involved throughout the whole project. Conclusion: Our indicator development trajectory resulted in a set of quality indicators applicable to all patients in all palliative care settings. The set includes patient and relative perspectives and includes outcome, process and structure indicators. Our method can contribute internationally to a more standardized and rigorous approach to developing quality indicators for palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Comparison of the first-generation Minimum Geriatric Screening Tools (MGST) and the third-generation interRAI Acute Care (interRAI AC). Design: Based on a qualitative multiphase exchange of expert opinion, published evidence was critically analyzed and translated into a consensus. Results: Both methods are intended for a multi-domain geriatric assessment in acute hospital settings, but each with a different scope and goal. MGST contains a collection of single-domain, internationally validated instruments. Assessment is usually triggered by care givers' clinical impression based on geriatric expertise. A limited selection of domains is usually assessed only once, by disciplines with domain-specific expertise. Clinical use results in improvement to screen geriatric problems. InterRAI AC, tailored for acute settings, intends to screen a large number of geriatric domains. Based on systematic observational data, risk domains are triggered and clinical guidelines are suggested. Multiple observation periods outline the evolution of patients' functioning over stay in comparison to the premorbid situation. The method is appropriate for application on geriatric and non-geriatric wards, filling geriatric knowledge gaps. The interRAI Suite contains a common set of standardized items across settings, facilitating data transfer in transitional care. Conclusion: The third-generation interRAI AC has advantages compared to the first-generation MGST. A cascade system is proposed to integrate both, complementary methods in practice. The systematic interRAI AC assessment detects risk domains. Subsequently, clinical protocols suggest components of the MGST as additional assessment This cascade approach unites the strength of exhaustive assessment of the interRAI AC with domain-specific tools of the MGST. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]