Remedial actions for the physical inactivity of hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes

Explanatory variables of objectively measured 24-h movement behaviors in people with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes: A systematic review

AIM

Physical activity (PA), sedentary behavior (SB) and sleep (i.e. 24-h movement behaviors) are associated with health indicators in people with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes (T2D). To optimize 24-h movement behaviors, it is crucial to identify explanatory variables related to these behaviors. This review aimed to summarize the explanatory variables of 24-h movement behaviors in people with prediabetes or T2D.

METHODS

A systematic search of four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus & Embase) was performed. Only objective measurements of 24-h movement behaviors were included in the search strategy. The explanatory variables were classified according to the levels of the socio-ecological model (i.e. intrapersonal, interpersonal and environmental). The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal checklist.

RESULTS

None of the 78 included studies investigated 24-h movement behaviors. The majority of the studies investigated PA in isolation. Most studied explanatory variables were situated at the intrapersonal level. Being male was associated with more moderate to vigorous PA but less light PA in people with T2D, and more total PA in people with prediabetes. An older age was associated with a decrease in all levels of PA in people with T2D. HbA1c was positively associated with sleep and SB in both groups. No associations were found at the interpersonal or environmental level.

CONCLUSION

The results of this review underscore the lack of a socio-ecological approach toward explanatory variables of 24-h movement behaviors and the lack of focus on an integrated 24-h movement behavior approach in both populations.

A Scoping Review of Wearable Technologies for Use in Individuals With Intellectual Disabilities and Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy

BACKGROUND

Individuals with intellectual disabilities (IDs) are at risk of diabetes mellitus (DM) and diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), which can lead to foot ulcers and lower-extremity amputations. However, cognitive differences and communication barriers may impede some methods for screening and prevention of DPN. Wearable and mobile technologies-such as smartphone apps and pressure-sensitive insoles-could help to offset these barriers, yet little is known about the effectiveness of these technologies among individuals with ID.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of the databases Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science using search terms for DM, DPN, ID, and technology to diagnose or monitor DPN. Finding a lack of research in this area, we broadened our search terms to include any literature on technology to diagnose or monitor DPN and then applied these findings within the context of ID.

RESULTS

We identified 88 articles; 43 of 88 (48.9%) articles were concerned with gait mechanics or foot pressures. No articles explicitly included individuals with ID as the target population, although three articles involved individuals with other cognitive impairments (two among patients with a history of stroke, one among patients with hemodialysis-related cognitive changes).

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with ID are not represented in studies using technology to diagnose or monitor DPN. This is a concern given the risk of DM complications among patients with ID and the potential for added benefit of such technologies to reduce barriers to screening and prevention. More studies should investigate how wearable devices can be used among patients with ID.

Motives and Barriers to Exercise Training during Hospitalization in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background: Exercise training during hospitalization may prevent loss of physical function and hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. The aim of this study was to assess motives and barriers to exercise training in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: Data were collected using a questionnaire about motives and barriers to exercise training during hospitalization. Additional data for clinical characteristics of the participants were collected from patient records. Results: 79 patients participated (mean ± SD age 72 ± 12 years; 42% women), of whom 25% had a low level of education and 46% lived alone. The median (IQR) length of the stay was 6 (4–10) days. A total of 67% of the participants wished to be more physically active. Walking as exercise was preferred by 51%. The most frequently reported barriers to exercise training were bodily pain (48%) and dizziness (42%). Low vs. high level of education, and living alone vs. being married/living with a partner were associated with reduced odds of a wish to be more physically active, odds ratio (OR) 0.15 [95% CI 0.03; 0.76], p = 0.022, and 0.21 [0.05; 0.82], p = 0.025, respectively. Conclusion: Two out of three hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes wished to be more physically active during admission. Bodily pain was a barrier to exercise training and needs attention in training programs. As a low level of education was associated with reduced odds of a wish to be more active, a strategy to include all patients in training programs which considers social inequality is needed.

The MOBILISE study: utilisation of ambulatory pumps in the inpatient setting to administer continuous antibiotic infusions-a randomised controlled trial

In the inpatient setting, antibiotics are generally administered via bedside pumps with multiple daily dosing. Utilisation of a continuous antibiotic infusion (CAI) instead might have patient and nursing satisfaction, workflow efficiencies and infection control benefits. We aimed to study the utilisation of CAI in the inpatient setting for routine antibiotic administration. Patients receiving a peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) for antibiotic administration were screened for the study. The patients were randomised to either (1) standard pump and intermittent antibiotic administration (IAA) or (2) CAI via an ambulatory pump. An accelerometer placed on the ankle was used to assess patient activity. Nursing and patient satisfaction surveys were also carried out. Forty patients met the study criteria for enrolment with 21 patients being enrolled in the CAI arm of the study. One hundred and five days of accelerometer recordings were available for analysis. The geometric mean activity was 45 min/day in the standard arm and 64 min/day in the CAI arm. This represented a 42% (95% CI: -14 to 133%, p = 0.16) difference in activity between the two groups. Nursing staff reported that they spent less time throughout their shift attending the antibiotic line or pump in patients who were in the CAI arm of the study (p < 0.001). In addition, patients in this arm of the study were more likely to recommend this method of administration of antibiotics to a family member (p =0.0001). The MOBILISE study showed nursing and patient satisfaction when CAI were utilised in the inpatient setting. A statistically non-significant difference in mobility was seen. The trial was registered (28/03/2018) with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618000452291).

How much do hospitalized adults move? A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To quantify the type and duration of physical activity performed by hospitalized adults.

BACKGROUND

Inactivity is pervasive among hospitalized patients and is associated with increased mortality, functional decline, and cognitive impairment. Objective measurement of activity is necessary to examine associations with clinical outcomes and quantify optimal inpatient mobility interventions.

METHODS

We used PRISMA guidelines to search three databases in December 2017 to retrieve original research evaluating activity type and duration among adult acute-care inpatients. We abstracted data on inpatient population, measurement method, monitoring time, activity duration, and study quality.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight articles were included in the review and 7 articles were included in the meta-analysis. Study populations included geriatric (n = 5), surgical (n = 5), medical (n = 12), post-stroke (n = 10), psychiatric (n = 2), and critical care inpatients (n = 4). To measure activity, 29% of studies used human observation and 71% used activity monitors. Among inpatient populations, 87-100% of time was spent sitting or lying in-bed. Among medical inpatients monitored over a continuous 24-hour period (n = 7), 70 min per day was spent standing/walking (95% CI 57-83 min).

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a baseline assessment and benchmark of inpatient activity, which can be used to compare inpatient mobility practices. While there is substantial heterogeneity in how researchers measure and define how much inpatients move, there is consistent evidence that patients are mostly inactive and in-bed during hospitalization. Future research is needed to establish standardized methods to accurately and consistently measure inpatient mobility over time.

Accelerometry Shows Inpatients With Acute Medical or Surgical Conditions Spend Little Time Upright and Are Highly Sedentary: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Physical inactivity and sedentary behaviors have significant and independent effects on health. The use of wearable monitors to measure these constructs in people who are hospitalized with an acute illness is rapidly expanding, but has not been systematically described.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to review the use of accelerometer monitoring with inpatients who are acutely ill, including what activity and sedentary behaviors have been measured and how active or sedentary inpatients are.

DATA SOURCES

Databases used were MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Scopus.

STUDY SELECTION

Quantitative studies of adults with an acute medical or surgical hospital admission, on whom an accelerometer was used to measure a physical activity or sedentary behavior, were selected.

DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS

Procedures were completed independently by 2 reviewers, with differences resolved and cross-checked by a third reviewer. Forty-two studies were identified that recruited people who had medical diagnoses (n = 10), stroke (n = 5), critical illness (n = 3), acute exacerbations of lung disease (n = 7), cardiac conditions (n = 7), or who were postsurgery (n = 10). Physical activities or sedentary behaviors were reported in terms of time spent in a particular posture (lying/sitting, standing/stepping), active/inactive, or at a particular activity intensity. Physical activity was also reported as step count, number of episodes or postural transitions, and bouts. Inpatients spent 93% to 98.8% (range) of their hospital stay sedentary, and in most studies completed <1,000 steps/day despite up to 50 postural transitions/day. No study reported sedentary bouts. Many studies controlled for preadmission function as part of the recruitment strategy or analysis or both.

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity in monitoring devices (17 models), protocols, and variable definitions limited comparability between studies and clinical groups to descriptive synthesis without meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalized patients were highly inactive, especially those with medical admissions, based on time and step parameters. Accelerometer monitoring of sedentary behavior patterns was less reported and warrants further research.

Differences in the daily activity of patients with diabetic foot ulcers compared to controls in their free-living environments

The aims of our study were to investigate multiple daily activity outcomes in patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) compared to diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and diabetes (DM) controls in their free-living environments. We examined daily activity outcomes of 30 patients with DFU, 23 DPN and 20 DM. All patients wore a validated multi-sensor device for > 5 days (>22 hours per day) to measure their daily activity outcomes: steps, energy expenditure (kJ), average metabolic equivalent tasks (METs), physical activity (>3·0 METs) duration and energy expenditure, lying duration, sleep duration and sleep quality. We found that DFU patients recorded fewer median (interquartile ranges, IQR) daily steps [2154 (1621-4324)] than DPN [3660 (2742-7705)] and DM [5102 (4011-7408)] controls (P < 0·05). In contrast, DFU patients recorded more mean ± SD daily energy expenditure (kJ) (13 006 ± 3559) than DPN (11 085 ± 1876) and DM (11 491 ± 1559) controls (P < 0·05). We found no other differences in daily activity outcomes (P > 0·1). We conclude that DFU patients typically take fewer steps but expend more energy during their normal daily activity than DPN and DM controls. We hypothesise that the increased energy expenditure for DFU patients may be due to wound healing or an inefficient gait strategy. Further investigations into this energy imbalance in DFU patients may improve healing in future.

Physical activity measured by the SenseWear Armband in women with rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) often are sedentary and have an increased risk of developing comorbid conditions. Women with RA are more likely to experience challenges in maintaining an active lifestyle over their life span than men with RA or people who are healthy. As the benefits of physical activity (PA) are well known, measuring PA accurately in this population is important.

OBJECTIVES

The purposes of this study were: (1) to characterize PA as measured with the SenseWear Armband (SWA) in women with RA and (2) to determine the measurement time frame to obtain consistent estimates of PA and daily energy expenditure (EE) in women with RA.

DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Participants wore the SWA for 7 days. Measurements of daily total energy expenditure (TEE), physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) during activities at or above 1 metabolic equivalent (MET) level (PAEE≥1MET), PAEE during activities at or above 2 METs (PAEE≥2METs), PAEE during activities at or above 3 METs (PAEE≥3METs), and number of steps were obtained.

RESULTS

Fifty-three women participated. Complete data were obtained for 47 participants (89%). Daily usage of the SWA was 98% of the time (23:31 hours/24 hours). Means (SD) were 2,099 (340) kcal/d for TEE, 1,050 (331) kcal/d for PAEE≥1MET, 642 (309) kcal/d for PAEE≥2METs, 239 (178) kcal/d for PAEE≥3METs, and 7,260 (2,710) for number of steps. Results of intraclass correlation coefficient analyses and multiple linear regressions indicated that 2 days were needed to reliably estimate TEE; 3 days for PAEE≥1MET, PAEE≥2METs, and number of steps; and 4 days for PAEE≥3METs.

LIMITATIONS

The sample was composed of well-educated women with RA who had mild to moderate difficulty performing daily activities.

CONCLUSION

The SWA may be useful to quantify PA in women with RA and to monitor effectiveness of interventions aiming to increase PA levels. Minimizing the number of days necessary for data collection will reduce the individual's burden and may improve adherence in studies of PA behaviors.