Search

Background: Activity trackers such as the Fitbit Charge 2 enable users and researchers to monitor physical activity in daily life, which could be beneficial for changing behaviour. However, the accuracy of the Fitbit Charge 2 in a free-living environment is largely unknown. Objective: To investigate the agreement between Fitbit Charge 2 and ActiGraph GT3X for the estimation of steps, energy expenditure, time in sedentary behaviour, and light and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity under free-living conditions, and further examine to what extent placing the ActiGraph on the wrist as opposed to the hip would affect the findings. Methods: 41 adults (n = 10 males, n = 31 females) were asked to wear a Fitbit Charge 2 device and two ActiGraph GT3X devices (one on the hip and one on the wrist) for seven consecutive days and fill out a log of wear times. Agreement was assessed through Bland-Altman plots combined with multilevel analysis. Results: The Fitbit measured 1,492 steps/day more than the hip-worn ActiGraph (limits of agreement [LoA] = -2,250; 5,234), while for sedentary time, it measured 25 min/day less (LoA = -137; 87). Both Bland-Altman plots showed fixed bias. For time in light physical activity, the Fitbit measured 59 min/day more (LoA = -52;169). For time in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, the Fitbit measured 31 min/day less (LoA = -132; 71) and for activity energy expenditure it measured 408 kcal/day more than the hip-worn ActiGraph (LoA = -385; 1,200). For the two latter outputs, the plots indicated proportional bias. Similar or more pronounced discrepancies, mostly in opposite direction, appeared when comparing to the wrist-worn ActiGraph. Conclusion: Moderate to substantial differences between devices were found for most outputs, which could be due to differences in algorithms. Caution should be taken if replacing one device with another and when comparing results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Out of pocket payment (OOPP), is the major health financing mechanism in South Asia region. With the rising burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), the region is facing a high financial burden. However, the extent and nature of economic impact caused by treatment and management of NCDs at the household level is yet unknown. Method: We conducted a systematic review using Medline and Embase databases. Only peer-reviewed quantitative studies published between January 2000 to December 2016 assessing OOPP or catastrophic health expenditure or impoverishment or financial coping strategy due to at least one of the four major NCDs—cardiovascular diseases(CVDs), diabetes, cancer, chronic respiratory disease in South Asia region was included in the review. The review is registered in PROSPERO no: CRD42017059345. Results: A total of 21 studies (of 2693 records identified) met the inclusion criteria. The economic impact was most frequently studied in CVDs and in terms of OOPP. The studies collectively indicated high OOPP, higher likelihood of catastrophic expenditure and impoverishment for inpatient care for these major NCDs which was visible in all income levels. Borrowing and selling off assets were the most common forms of coping strategies adopted and varied inconsistently between urban and rural households. The true extent of the economic impact, however, remains difficult to determine due to methodological heterogeneity regarding outcomes reported and measures employed for calculation of OOPP, catastrophic expenditure, and impoverishment across these four major NCDs and between nations. Conclusion: The economic impact due to treatment and management of CVDs, diabetes, cancer and chronic respiratory diseases among households in South Asia seems dire. Given the lack of sufficient evidence the review stresses the need for further research in the region to develop evidence-informed nationally tailored prepayment mechanisms covering NCDs to reduce economic vulnerability and standardization of tools measuring the economic impact for generating comparable estimates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There has been increasing interest in neighbourhoods’ influence on individuals’ health-risk behaviours, such as smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity and diet. The aim of this review was to systematically review recent studies on health-risk behaviour among adults who live in deprived neighbourhoods compared with those who live in non-deprived neighbourhoods and to summarise what kind of operationalisations of neighbourhood deprivation that were used in the studies. Methods: PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews were followed. Systematic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Sociological Abstracts using relevant search terms, Boolean operators, and truncation, and reference lists were scanned. Quantitative observational studies that examined health-risk behaviour in deprived neighbourhoods compared with non-deprived neighbourhoods were eligible for inclusion. Results: The inclusion criteria were met by 22 studies. The available literature showed a positive association between smoking and physical inactivity and living in deprived neighbourhoods compared with non-deprived neighbourhoods. In regard to low fruit and vegetable consumption and alcohol consumption, the results were ambiguous, and no clear differences were found. Numerous different operationalisations of neighbourhood deprivation were used in the studies. Conclusion: Substantial evidence indicates that future health interventions in deprived neighbourhoods should focus on smoking and physical inactivity. We suggest that alcohol interventions should be population based rather than based on the specific needs of deprived neighbourhoods. More research is needed on fruit and vegetable consumption. In future studies, the lack of a uniform operationalisation of neighbourhood deprivation must be addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]