Search

Background/Objectives: Methodologies for assessing behavior form the foundation of health promotion and disease prevention. Physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB) assessment methodologies have predominantly been developed for adults without an intellectual disability (ID), raising credibility concerns for adults with ID. The purpose was to synthesize the current state of assessment methodologies for quantifying PA and SB volume in the free-living setting for adults with an ID. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, eleven databases were searched through December 2023, yielding 8174 records. Data were extracted in Covidence (v.2.0), obtaining quantified PA and SB volume and assessment methodology characteristics across data collection and analysis, including tool(s) and technique(s) used, preparatory actions taken, instructions provided, and behavioral strategies employed during data collection. Results: Of the 8174 articles screened, 91 met the inclusion criteria. Common metrics included minutes/hours per day/week and steps per day/week. Despite 80% of the studies using objective techniques, substantial variation existed across studies regarding wearable models, sampling frequency and epoch length settings, calibration protocols, wearable placements, and data processing techniques. Limited studies provided instructions that did not exclusively rely on spoken language. Behavioral strategies varied, including self-monitoring, providing assistance or supervision, administering questionnaires verbally, issuing reminders, and offering monetary incentives. Conclusions: This review underscores the need for greater consistency and accessibility in PA and SB assessment methodology for adults with ID. Tailored preparation, instruction, and behavioral strategies may enhance assessment viability and suitability for adults with ID, with or without caregiver or researcher involvement in the free-living setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Family members make an important contribution to informal and formal care, as well as the overall health and wellbeing of individuals with spinal cord injury. Caregiving often results in negative outcomes which, if not addressed, threaten the sustainability of these critical supports. We sought to explore the perceptions of individuals with spinal cord injury and their family caregivers regarding the facilitators and barriers to undertaking and sustaining the caregiving role in the community. Methods: A qualitative descriptive approach with semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis was employed to determine key themes arising from individuals with spinal cord injury (n = 19) and their family members' (n = 16) experiences. Results: The following four facilitators to caregiving were identified: access to community support services, positive coping in relationship, social support, and mastery of caregiving roles. Conversely, the following six barriers to caregiving were identified: lack of access to community resources, lack of knowledge about resources and formal training, fragmented continuity of care, negative coping in relationship, role strain, and caregiver injury or illness. Conclusions: The current study demonstrated that positive coping, social support, skills training, access to community services and continuity of care contribute significantly to the sustainability of the spinal cord injury family caregiving role. As such, the development of future caregiver interventions should consider these facilitators. Family caregivers make an important contribution to the care processes and overall quality of life of individuals with spinal cord injury post-discharge into the community. The potential negative effects of caregiving could threaten the sustainability of these critical supports. Positive coping, social support, skills training, access to community services, and continuity of care contribute significantly to the sustainability of the spinal cord injury family caregiving role. This study shows the need for better integration of family members during the rehabilitation and discharge process to better prepare them for the caregiving role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Varying perceptions of who should be responsible for supporting individuals with mental health problems may contribute to their needs remaining unmet. A qualitative descriptive design was used to explore these perceptions among key stakeholders. Focus groups were conducted with 13 service users, 12 family members, and 18 treatment providers from an early psychosis intervention program in Montreal, Canada. Individual interviews were conducted with six mental health policy-/decision-makers. Participants across stakeholder groups assigned a range of responsibilities to individuals with mental health problems, stakeholders in these individuals' immediate and extended social networks (e.g., families), macro-level stakeholders with influence (e.g., government), and society as a whole. Perceived failings of the health care system and the need for greater sharing of roles and responsibilities also emerged as important themes. Our findings suggest that different stakeholders should collectively assume certain responsibilities and that systems-level failings may contribute to unmet needs for mental health support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Homelessness among adolescents and young adults is a growing concern in Canada and other countries, yet little is known about their support needs and support intervention preferences from the perspectives of homeless youth or youth at risk of homelessness. The authors assessed these needs and preferences through individual and group interviews with homeless adolescents and young adults (n = 35) and their service providers (n = 27). The unique perspectives of service providers and homeless youth converged on some issues. Key challenges faced by these youth included social isolation, alienation, low self-worth, lack of resources, and substance abuse. Although some services were available, they did not fully meet existing needs. Participants indicated that interventions should focus on emotional and affirmational support. They recommended face-to-face support that was accessible, flexible, participatory, long-term, and offered choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]