ORCID Profile
0000-0002-2951-6647
Current Organisation
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Human Kinetics
Date: 06-2018
Abstract: Time spent being sedentary is associated with poorer cognitive function and risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The present study aimed to compare patterns of sitting in a free-living environment among older adults with and without early stage AD who were similar in physical limitations, body mass, and cardiorespiratory capacity. We also compared estimates of sitting patterns between two different monitors (postural and non-postural) with different body placements (thigh-worn vs. hip-worn). Comparing older adults without cognitive impairment to those with early AD, we found that although there was no difference in the total amount of daily sitting time ( p = .52), the AD group tended to have longer durations of sitting than those without AD. Inclinometry data from the hip-worn ActiGraph GT3X+ consistently underestimated time spent sitting compared to the thigh worn monitor activPAL ™ (hours per day, proportion of waking hours, number of sitting bouts greater than 30 minutes, and duration of sitting bouts). Our results have implications for prevention strategies to reduce sedentary time, which is predominantly sitting, in persons with cognitive impairment and highlight the importance of monitor selection and placement for the accurate assessment of sitting patterns in this population.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 14-05-2020
DOI: 10.1111/JAN.14402
Abstract: To identify, critically appraise, and summarize instruments that measure patients’ preferences for engagement in health care. Psychometric systematic literature review. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to March 2019. Three reviewers independently evaluated the ‘methodological quality’ and the ‘measurement properties’ of the included instruments using the Consensus‐based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and Terwee's quality criteria. Each instrument was given a Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) score. The review was registered at PROSPERO (registry number CRD42018109253). A total of 16 studies evaluating 8 instruments measuring patients’ preferences for engagement in health care were included. All instruments were downgraded for their ‘methodological quality’ or ‘measurement properties’, or a combination of both. Common concerns were lack of theoretical basis, absence of patient input during development, incorrect usage and reporting of validity measures and absence of a priori hypotheses to test validity. There were no identified instruments that demonstrated adequate evidence for all measurement properties. The Patient Preferences for Patient Participation Scale (4Ps) and 10‐item Decisional Engagement Scale (DES‐10) had the highest overall GRADE scores however, each had some underlying developmental or methodological issues. Assessing how patients prefer to engage in their care is a critical first step to truly in idualize engagement interventions to meet patient expectations. Systematic reviews of measures of patient experience with engagement in health care have been undertaken but none are available on measures of patient preferences for engagement. The results highlight the need to further develop and test instruments that measure patients’ preferences for engagement in health care within a framework for consumerism. Involving the consumer in the instrument development process will ensure that engagement strategies used by healthcare providers are relevant and in idualized to consumer preferences.
Location: United States of America
No related grants have been discovered for Mauricio Garnier-Villarreal.