What happened to my legs when I broke my arm?

This case report describes an incident that occurred during the course of a research intervention study. Participants in the study were continually monitored with an activPAL activity monitor. Whilst wearing the monitor a participant had a fall causing musculoskeletal trauma requiring hospital admission. The patient was admitted for an acute hospital stay (3 days) for management of the upper limb injury. The case report presents the measurement of the participant’s sedentary time before the incident, during hospitalisation and post discharge. The report is relevant for education and service design both in hospital and in the community settings as it demonstrates the rapid influence of an upper limb injury and consequences beyond the hospital bed. This report is novel as it presents not only hospitalisation and post hospital activity, but also provides insight into the individual’s actual objective (rather than retrospective self-report) activity patterns before hospitalisation. The infographic presentation has been chosen to allow quick and easy understanding of information

Beyond “#endpjparalysis”, tackling sedentary behaviour in health care

Reducing sedentary behaviour after hospitalization starts with reducing sedentary behaviour whilst in hospital. Although we have eradicated immobilisation as a therapeutic tool due to its potent detrimental effects, it is still in systemic use within health care systems and hospitals. Evidence shows that when in hospital, patients spend most of their time sedentary. In this editorial, we explore the determinants of, and a system-based approach to, reducing sedentary behaviour in health care

Prevalence of sedentary behavior in older adults: a systematic review

Sedentary behavior is a cluster of behaviors adopted in a sitting or lying posture where little energy is being expended. Sedentary behavior is a risk factor for health independent to inactivity. Currently, there are no published systematic reviews on the prevalence of sedentary behavior objectively measured in, or subjectively reported by, older adults. The aim of this systematic review was to collect and analyze published literature relating to reported prevalence of sedentary behavior, written in English, on human adults, where subjects aged 60 years and over were represented in the study. 23 reports covered data from 18 surveys sourced from seven countries. It was noted that sedentary behavior is defined in different ways by each survey. The majority of surveys included used self-report as a measurement of sedentary behavior. Objective measurements were also captured with the use of body worn accelerometers. Whether measurements are subjective or objective, the majority of older adults are sedentary. Almost 60% of older adult’s reported sitting for more than 4 h per day, 65% sit in front of a screen for more than 3 h daily and over 55% report watching more than 2 h of TV. However, when measured objectively in a small survey, it was found that 67% of the older population were sedentary for more than 8.5 h daily

Why older adults spend time sedentary and break their sedentary behavior: a mixed methods approach using life-logging equipment

Older adults are recommended to reduce their sedentary time to promote healthy ageing. To develop effective interventions identifying when, why, and how older adults are able to change their sitting habits is important. The aim of this mixed-method study was to improve our understanding of reasons for (breaking) sedentary behavior in older adults. Thirty older adults (74.0 [+/- 5.3] years old, 73% women) were asked about their believed reasons for (breaking) sedentary behavior, and about their actual reasons when looking at a personal storyboard with objective records of activPAL monitor data and time-lapse camera pictures showing all their periods of sedentary time in a day. The most often mentioned believed reason for remaining sedentary was television/radio (mentioned by 48.3%), while eating/drinking was most often mentioned as actual reason (96.6%). Only 17.2% believed that food/tea preparation was a reason to break up sitting, while this was an actual reason for 82.8% of the study sample. Results of this study show that there is a discrepancy between believed and actual reasons for (breaking) sedentary behavior. These findings suggest developing interventions utilizing the actual reasons for breaking sedentary behavior to reduce sedentary time in older adults

A survey of therapists views on reducing sedentary behaviour in an acute clinical setting

Reducing sedentary behaviour is a priority in both the clinical and research settings. This survey aimed to gather the views on reducing sedentary behaviour from physiotherapy, occupational therapy and healthcare support staff working in the acute healthcare setting. Sixty-nine occupational therapy and physiotherapy staff completed an online survey during March and April 2018. The results were analysed by manual thematic analysis. Barriers to sedentary behaviour have been categorised under the following themes: patient factors, cultural factors, environmental factors and organisational factors. Solutions to facilitate change were themed as: move early and often, self-management, education, culture, environment, collaboration, social engagement, roles and sharing. The findings provide a basis for changing behaviour from a practitioner perspective

Public attitudes towards screening for kidney cancer: an online survey

Funder: Kidney Cancer UKFunder: The Urology FoundationAbstract: Background: Kidney cancer is often asymptomatic, leading to proposals for a screening programme. The views of the public towards introducing a new screening programme for kidney cancer are unknown. The aim of this study was to explore attitudes towards kidney cancer screening and factors influencing intention to attend a future screening programme. Methods: We conducted an online population-based survey of 1021 adults aged 45–77 years. The main outcome measure was intention to attend four possible screening tests (urine, blood, ultrasound scan, low-dose CT) as well as extended low-dose CT scans within lung cancer screening programmes. We used multivariable regression to examine the association between intention and each screening test. Results: Most participants stated that they would be ‘very likely’ or ‘likely’ to undergo each of the screening tests [urine test: n = 961 (94.1%); blood test: n = 922 (90.3%); ultrasound: n = 914 (89.5%); low-dose CT: n = 804 (78.8%); lung CT: n = 962 (95.2%)]. Greater intention to attend was associated with higher general cancer worry and less perceived burden/inconvenience about the screening tests. Less worry about the screening test was also associated with higher intention to attend, but only in those with low general cancer worry (cancer worry scale ≤ 5). Compared with intention to take up screening with a urine test, participants were half as likely to report that they intended to undergo blood [OR 0.56 (0.43–0.73)] or ultrasound [OR 0.50 (0.38–0.67)] testing, and half as likely again to report that they intended to take part in a screening programme featuring a low dose CT scan for kidney cancer screening alone [OR 0.19 (0.14–0.27)]. Conclusion: Participants in this study expressed high levels of intention to accept an invitation to screening for kidney cancer, both within a kidney cancer specific screening programme and in conjunction with lung cancer screening. The choice of screening test is likely to influence uptake. Together these findings support on-going research into kidney cancer screening tests and the potential for combining kidney cancer screening with existing or new screening programmes

Exploring the context of sedentary behaviour in older adults (what, where, why, when and with whom)

BACKGROUND: Older adults are the most sedentary segment of the population. Little information is available about the context of sedentary behaviour to inform guidelines and intervention. There is a dearth of information about when, where to intervene and which specific behaviours intervention should target. The aim of this exploratory study was to obtain objective information about what older adults do when sedentary, where and when they are sedentary and in what social context. METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional data collection. Older adults (Mean age = 73.25, SD ± 5.48, median = 72, IQR = 11) volunteers wore activPAL monitors and a Vicon Revue timelapse camera between 1 and 7 days. Periods of sedentary behaviour were identified using the activPAL and the context extracted from the pictures taken during these periods. Analysis of context was conducted using the Sedentary Behaviour International Taxonomy classification system. RESULTS: In total, 52 days from 36 participants were available for analysis. Participants spent 70.1 % of sedentary time at home, 56.9 % of sedentary time on their own and 46.8 % occurred in the afternoon. Seated social activities were infrequent (6.9 % of sedentary bouts) but prolonged (18 % of sedentary time). Participants appeared to frequently have vacant sitting time (41 % of non-screen sedentary time) and screen sitting was prevalent (36 % of total sedentary time). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides valuable information to inform future interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour. Interventions should consider targeting the home environment and focus on the afternoon sitting time, though this needs confirmation in a larger study. Tackling social isolation may also be a target to reduce sedentary time

Acceptability and potential impact on uptake of using different risk stratification approaches to determine eligibility for screening: A population‐based survey

Funder: Kidney Cancer UKFunder: Renal Cancer Research FundAbstract: Background: Using risk stratification approaches to determine eligibility has the potential to improve efficiency of screening. Objectives: To compare the public acceptability and potential impact on uptake of using different approaches to determine eligibility for screening. Design: An online population‐based survey of 668 adults in the UK aged 45‐79 including a series of scenarios in the context of a potential kidney cancer screening programme in which eligibility was determined by age, sex, age and sex combined, a simple risk score (age, sex, body mass index, smoking status), a complex risk score additionally incorporating family history and lifestyle, or a genetic risk score. Outcome measures: We used multi‐level ordinal logistic regression to compare acceptability and potential uptake within individuals and multivariable ordinal logistic regression differences between individuals. Results: Using sex, age and sex, or the simple risk score were less acceptable than age (P < .0001). All approaches were less acceptable to women than men. Over 70% were comfortable waiting until they were older if the complex risk score or genetics indicated a low risk. If told they were high risk, 85% would be more likely to take up screening. Being told they were low risk had no overall influence on uptake. Conclusions: Varying the starting age of screening based on estimated risk from models incorporating phenotypic or genetic risk factors would be acceptable to most individuals and may increase uptake. Patient or Public Contribution: Two members of the public contributed to the development of the survey and have commented on this paper