Search

ObjectiveTo estimate the effectiveness of physical activity monitor (PAM) based interventions among adults and explore reasons for the heterogeneity.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Study selectionThe electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched on 4 June 2021. Eligible randomised controlled trials compared interventions in which adults received feedback from PAMs with control interventions in which no feedback was provided. No restrictions on type of outcome measurement, publication date, or language were applied.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to synthesise the results. The certainty of evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.Main outcome measuresThe three primary outcomes of interest were physical activity, moderate to vigorous physical activity, and sedentary time.Results121 randomised controlled trials with 141 study comparisons, including 16 743 participants, were included. The PAM based interventions showed a moderate effect (standardised mean difference 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.55) on physical activity, equivalent to 1235 daily steps; a small effect (0.23, 0.16 to 0.30) on moderate to vigorous physical activity, equivalent to 48.5 weekly minutes; and a small insignificant effect (−0.12, −0.25 to 0.01) on sedentary time, equal to 9.9 daily minutes. All outcomes favoured the PAM interventions.ConclusionsThe certainty of evidence was low for the effect of PAM based interventions on physical activity and moderate for moderate to vigorous physical activity and sedentary time. PAM based interventions are safe and effectively increase physical activity and moderate to vigorous physical activity. The effect on physical activity and moderate to vigorous physical activity is well established but might be overestimated owing to publication bias.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42018102719.

IntroductionAn interdisciplinary team approach to patients in specialised palliative care is recommended; however, the composition of the professionals tends to vary, and the roles of physiotherapists and occupational therapists may be underestimated. We aimed to investigate patient-reported unmet needs, which potentially could benefit from physiotherapy and occupational therapy interventions in a specialised palliative care team.MethodsAdult patients with chronic advanced diseases referred to the Specialised Palliative Care Team at Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet were enrolled in the study. The Three-Levels-of-Needs Questionnaire was used as primary outcome to assess symptom/problem intensity, symptom/problem burden and felt needs for 12 commonly reported symptoms/problems for patients referred to a specialised palliative care team. Furthermore, participants’ level of distress, fatigue and physical activity, symptoms of anxiety and depression, and barriers towards the rehabilitation programme were registered with other measures.ResultsIn total, 43 of 67 (64%) patients participated. The majority of participants reported severe symptoms/problems concerning fatigue (81%), impaired physical activities (77%), carrying out work and daily activities (77%), pain (72%), and worries (58%). Furthermore, need for help was expressed concerning physical activities (79%), work and daily activities (77%), fatigue (70%), pain (65%), concentration (58%) and worries (51%). On average the patients characterised 6 (out of 12) symptoms/problems as severe.ConclusionPatients referred to a specialised palliative care team reported extensive unmet needs concerning physical activities, work and daily activities, fatigue, pain, concentration and worries. Unmet needs that potentially could be alleviated by physiotherapists or occupational therapists implemented in the interdisciplinary team.