Search

Despite growing research on sedentary behaviour and physical activity among hospitalised older people, there is little evidence of effective intervention strategies. This study sought input from clinical staff from various health professions on strategies to increase physical activity and reduce sedentariness for hospitalised older people.A 60-minute focus group discussion involving two physiotherapists, two occupational therapists, one doctor, one nurse and one social worker was conducted. Participants were recruited from a subacute geriatric ward and an acute orthopaedic ward with an orthogeriatric service at a general hospital. Data were thematically analysed.Six strategies to reduce sedentary behaviour and increase physical activity were identified: clear and positive communication for patients and family/carers; educating patients and family/carers; involving family/carers and volunteers; setting physical activity goals; utilising group activities and activities of daily living (ADL); and making the hospital environment activity-friendly.This research has revealed novel strategies to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour in hospital. The next step is to design interventions for testing.

Background Older adults spend up to 23 h daily sitting or lying while in hospital. Sedentary behaviour (SB) within a hospital setting is often associated with poor health outcomes including physical and cognitive decline, reduced quality of life and death as well as hospital readmissions. Conversely, replacing SB with mild to moderate levels of physical activity such as walking can significantly reduce hospital readmission risk by 30 days. Given the potentially harmful effects of SB in hospitalised older adults, it is vital to identify current literature by broadly exploring different aspects of SB among older people in hospital. The overall aim of this scoping review is to produce a literature map of current evidence on key domains of sedentary behaviour in hospitalised older people. Method A search for relevant publications will be undertaken in Pedro, MEDLINE Ovid, Cochrane, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsychInfo, Embase, Ageline, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and clinical trials registries. Publications in English and those where the author can provide the full text in English will be included. Studies conducted in hospitals (including in-patient rehabilitation facilities) or acute and subacute care settings and in people aged ≥ 65 will be included. A three-stage method will be used to identify relevant articles, consisting of database search using keywords, keywords and index words across all databases, and reference searching. Articles will be selected following screening of titles/abstracts succeeded by a full-text appraisal utilising a standardised selection form. Two independent reviewers will extract data using the standardised form that will be tested on two articles. A narrative summary will accompany results presented in tables and figures.

Additional file 2. CINAHL search.

Additional file 3. Data extraction form.

Additional file 1. PRISMA-P 2015 Checklist.

Additional file 4. Data presentation table for SB and SBBR2.

The objective of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of digital health supported targeted patient communication versus usual provision of health information, on the recovery of fragility fractures. The review considered studies including older people, aged 50 and above, with a fragility fracture. The primary outcome was prevention of secondary fractures by diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis, and its adherence. This review considered both experimental and quasi-experimental study designs. A comprehensive search strategy was built to identify key terms including Medical subject headings (MeSH) and applied to the multiple electronic databases. An intention to treat analysis was applied to those studies included in the meta-analysis and odds ratio was calculated with random effects. Altogether, 15 studies were considered in the final stage for this systematic review. Out of these, 10 studies were Randomised controlled trials (RCT) and five were quasi experimental studies, published between the years 2003 and 2016 with a total of 5037 participants. Five Randomised control trails were included in the meta-analysis suggesting that digital health supported interventions were overall, twice as effective when compared with the usual standard care (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.30&ndash, 3.48), despite the population sample not being homogeneous. Findings from the remaining studies were narratively interpreted.

Background: Sedentary behaviour (SB) can delay hospitalised older adults’ recovery from acute illness and injuries. Currently, there is no synthesis of evidence on SB among hospitalised older people. This scoping review aimed to identify and map existing literature on key aspects of SB among hospitalised older adults, including the prevalence, measurement and intervention strategies for SB and sedentary behaviour bouts (SBBs) as well as healthcare professionals, patients and carers’ perspectives on interventions. Methods and analysis: Several electronic databases were searched between January 2001 and September 2020. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) framework was used to conduct this scoping review. Results: Out of 1824 articles, 21 were included comprising 16 observational studies, 3 randomised controlled trials, 1 comparative study, and 1 phase-1 dose-response study. The sample size ranged from 13 to 393, with all 1435 participants community-dwelling before hospitalisation. Only two studies focused on measuring SB and SBBs as a primary outcome, with others (n = 19) reporting SB and SBB as a sub-set of physical activity (PA). Older adults spent an average of 86.5%/day (20.8 h) sedentary. Most studies (n = 15 out of 21) measured SB and SBB using objective tools. Conclusion: Hospitalised older people spent most of their waking hours sedentary. Studies explicitly focused on SB and SBB are lacking, and the perspectives of patients, carers and healthcare professionals are not clarified. Future hospital-based studies should focus on interventions to reduce SB and SBB, and the perspectives of healthcare professionals, patients and carers’ taken into account.