A Bluetooth-Enabled Device for Real-Time Detection of Sitting, Standing, and Walking: Cross-Sectional Validation Study

Background This study assesses the accuracy of a Bluetooth-enabled prototype activity tracker called the Sedentary behaviOR Detector (SORD) device in identifying sedentary, standing, and walking behaviors in a group of adult participants. Objective The primary objective of this study was to determine the criterion and convergent validity of SORD against direct observation and activPAL. Methods A total of 15 healthy adults wore SORD and activPAL devices on their thighs while engaging in activities (lying, reclining, sitting, standing, and walking). Direct observation was facilitated with cameras. Algorithms were developed using the Python programming language. The Bland-Altman method was used to assess the level of agreement. Results Overall, 1 model generated a low level of bias and high precision for SORD. In this model, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were all above 0.95 for detecting sitting, reclining, standing, and walking. Bland-Altman results showed that mean biases between SORD and direct observation were 0.3% for sitting and reclining (limits of agreement [LoA]=–0.3% to 0.9%), 1.19% for standing (LoA=–1.5% to 3.42%), and –4.71% for walking (LoA=–9.26% to –0.16%). The mean biases between SORD and activPAL were –3.45% for sitting and reclining (LoA=–11.59% to 4.68%), 7.45% for standing (LoA=–5.04% to 19.95%), and –5.40% for walking (LoA=–11.44% to 0.64%). Conclusions Results suggest that SORD is a valid device for detecting sitting, standing, and walking, which was demonstrated by excellent accuracy compared to direct observation. SORD offers promise for future inclusion in theory-based, real-time, and adaptive interventions to encourage physical activity and reduce sedentary behavior

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Exercise Physiology Services in Australia: A Retrospective Audit

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a shift in healthcare towards telehealth delivery, which presents challenges for exercise physiology services. We aimed to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the reach, efficacy, adoption and implementation of telehealth delivery for exercise physiology services by comparing Australian practises before (prior to 25 January 2020) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (after 25 January 2020). Methods: This retrospective audit included 80 accredited exercise physiology clinicians. We examined relevant dimensions of the RE-AIM framework (reach, effectiveness, adoption and implementation) from the clinician perspective. Results: During the COVID-19 pandemic, 91% (n = 73/80) of surveyed clinicians offered telehealth delivery service, compared to 25% (n = 20/80) prior. Mean (SD) telehealth delivery per week doubled from 5 (7) to 10 (8) hours. In-person delivery decreased from 23 (11) to 15 (11) hours per week. Typical reasons for not offering telehealth delivery were client physical/cognitive incapacity (n = 33/80, 41%) and safety (n = 24/80, 30%). Clinician-reported reasons for typical clients not adopting telehealth delivery were personal preference (n = 57/71, 80%), physical capacity (n = 35/71, 49%) and access to reliable delivery platforms (n = 27/71, 38%). Zoom (n = 54/71, 76%) and telephone (n = 53/71, 75%) were the most commonly used platforms. Of the reasons contributing to incomplete treatment, lack of confidence in delivery mode was sevenfold higher for telehealth compared to in-person delivery. No serious treatment-related adverse events were reported. Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth delivery of exercise physiology services increased and in-person delivery decreased, which suggests the profession was adaptable and agile. However, further research determining comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness is warranted