Search

Strongly framed research questions are clear as to the population (P), the exposures or interventions (E/I), comparison groups (C), outcomes (O), time when relevant (T), and what the investigator wants to know. A solid framework sets up the measurement model, analysis, and anticipated results. The purpose of this study was to estimate the extent to which research questions in journals that focused on patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and quality of life (QOL) are clear.All 440 research articles published in four PROM journals in 2020. excluding reviews, psychometric, and qualitative papers, were reviewed. Research questions were classified as: (i) adequately framed (ii) poorly framed; or (iii) unframed based on clarity criteria. Examples from each journal were presented and reframed to match results in the article.Of 440 articles, 195 (44.3%) were classified as adequately framed; 230 (52.2%) as poorly framed; and 15 (3.4%) as unframed. There was heterogeneity across journals (Chi-square: 20.8; 6 df; p = 0.002). Only 29% were framed according to what the investigators wanted to know; 72% were framed like a "to do" list; and 6% were framed as a research agenda.Almost half of the questions were poorly framed or unframed a practice that could contribute to research wastage. Even "adequately framed" questions rarely stated what they wanted to know a priori, increasing the risk of biased reporting. Researchers, reviewers, and editors should encourage the use established frameworks for research questions.

Purpose: To identify older Canadians’ perception of the importance of expert-generated elements of walking quality, and the contributors to and consequences of perceived walking quality. Method:Cross-sectional survey of 649 adults was conducted through a commercial participant panel, Hosted in Canada Surveys. Results: Of the 649 respondents, 75% were between 65 and 74 years old (25% ≥ 75) and 49% were women. The most important elements were foot, ankle, hip, and knee mobility with little difference in ranks across walking perception (Fr χ2 = 5.0, df 12, p > 0.05). People who were older by a decade were more likely to report poorer walking (POR: 1.4; 95% CI: 1.0–1.7), as were women compared to men, and people who used a walking aid compared to none. Lung disease showed the highest association with a perception of not walking well (POR: 7.2; 95% CI: 3.7, 14.2). The odds of being willing to pay more for a technology to improve walking were always greater for those with a lower perception of their walking quality. Conclusions:People who perceived their walking quality as poor were more likely to report poorer health and were willing to pay more for a technology to improve walking. This supports the opportunity of leveraging wearable technologies to improve walking.

To estimate the extent to which comorbidity and lifestyle factors were associated with physical frailty in middle-aged and older Canadians living with HIV.Cross-sectional analysis of 856 participants from the Canadian Positive Brain Health Now cohort.The frailty indicator phenotype was adapted from Fried's criteria using self-report items. Univariate logistic regression and classification and regression tree (CaRT) models were used to identify the most relevant independent contributors to frailty.In all, 100 men (14.0%) and 26 women (19.7%) were identified as frail (≥ 3/5 criteria) for an overall prevalence of 15.2%. Nine comorbidities showed an influential association with frailty. The most influential comorbidities were hypothyroidism [odds ratio (OR) = 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-5.03] and arthritis (OR = 2.54, 95% CI: 1.58-4.09). Additionally, tobacco (OR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.05-3.04) showed an association. Any level of alcohol consumption showed a protective effect for frailty. The CaRT model showed nine pathways that led to frailty. Arthritis was the most discriminatory variable followed by alcohol, hypothyroidism, tobacco, cancer, cannabis, liver disease, kidney disease, osteoporosis, lung disease and peripheral vascular disease. The prevalence of physical frailty for people with arthritis was 27.4%; with additional cancer or tobacco and alcohol the prevalence rates were 47.1% and 46.1%, respectively. The protective effect of alcohol consumption evident in the univariate model appeared again in the CaRT model, but this effect varied. Cognitive frailty (19.5% overall) and emotional frailty (37.9% overall) were higher than the prevalence of physical frailty.Specific comorbidities and tobacco use were implicated in frailty, suggesting that it is comorbidities causing frailty. However, some frailty still appears to be HIV-related. The higher prevalence of cognitive and emotional frailty highlights the fact that physical frailty should not be the only focus in HIV.

The purpose of this study was to estimate, for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the extent to which glycemic control was affected by a 12-week program using mobile app and wearable smartwatch in comparison to supervised exercise training.This study was a stratified, randomized, assessor-blind, controlled, pragmatic trial with three parallel groups which were supervised, mobile app and wearable smartwatch. Individually tailored exercise regimens delivered through a supervisor, mobile app and wearable smartwatch. Programs consisted of aerobic, resistance exercises, calisthenic, flexibility, balance, and coordination exercises. Primary outcome was change in glycemic control (HbA1c); secondary outcome was Six Minute Walk Test; and explanatory outcomes were exercise behaviour, muscle function, and physical capacity. The groups were contrasted for change in HbA1c and absolute reduction of ≥0.5% (Minimal Important Change). Linear and logistic regressions were used to compare the groups and generalized estimated equations were used to analyze the explanatory outcomes.In total, 90 people were randomized, 6 were lost over 12 weeks, leaving 84 with outcome data. The difference in HbA1c did not differ between the supervised and the technology groups combined and between the mobile app and smartwatch group. Proportions of people achieving a clinically meaningful difference on HbA1c between the supervised and technology groups were similar (46% vs 43%) and the associated OR was 0.87 (95%CI:0.34-2.28). Within the two technology groups, proportions of people achieving a clinically meaningful difference in HbA1c were 48% in the mobile app and 38% in the smartwatch groups and the associated OR was 0.65 (95%CI:0.21-2.03). The groups did not differ on secondary and explanatory outcomes.The results of our trial provide evidence that all outcomes have improved in all groups regardless of the exercise delivery method. Considering the supervised programs are not available for everybody, technological options are crucial to implement to help individuals self-manage most aspects of their diabetes.

Research in rehabilitation has grown from a rare phenomenon to a mature science and clinical trials are now common. The purpose of this study is to estimate the extent to which questions posed and methods applied in clinical trials published in Clinical Rehabilitation have evolved over three decades with respect to accepted standards of scientific rigour. Studies were identified by journal, database, and hand searching for the years 1986 to 2016. A total of 390 articles whose titles suggested a clinical trial of an intervention, with or without randomization to form groups, were reviewed. Questions often still focused on methods to be used (57%) rather than what knowledge was to be gained. Less than half (43%) of the studies delineated between primary and secondary outcomes; multiple outcomes were common; and sample sizes were relatively small (mean 83, range 5 to 3312). Blinding of assessors was common (72%); blinding of study subjects was rare (19%). In less than one-third of studies was intention-to-treat analysis done correctly; power was reported in 43%. There is evidence of publication bias as 83% of studies reported either a between-group or a within-group effect. Over time, there was an increase in the use of parameter estimation rather than hypothesis testing and there was evidence that methodological rigour improved. Rehabilitation trialists are answering important questions about their interventions. Outcomes need to be more patient-centred and a measurement framework needs to be explicit. More advanced statistical methods are needed as interventions are complex. Suggestions for moving forward over the next decades are given.