The aim of the current study was to examine the effectiveness of a school-centered multicomponent PA intervention, called ‘Active Living’, on children's daily PA levels. A quasi-experimental design was used including 9 intervention schools and 9 matched control schools located in the Netherlands. The baseline measurement took place between March–June 2013, and follow-up measurements were conducted 12 months afterwards. Accelerometer (ActiGraph, GT3X +) data of 520 children aged 8–11 years were collected and supplemented with demographics and weather conditions data. Implementation magnitude of the interventions was measured by keeping logbooks on the number of implemented physical environmental interventions (PEIs) and social environmental interventions (SEIs). Multilevel multivariate linear regression analyses were used to study changes in sedentary behavior (SB), light physical activity (LPA) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) between baseline and follow-up. Finally, effect sizes (ESs) were calculated using Cohen's d. No pooled effects on PA and SB were found between children exposed and not exposed to Active Living after 12 months. However, children attending Active Living schools that implemented larger numbers of both PEIs and SEIs engaged in 15 more minutes of LPA per weekday at follow-up than children in the control condition (ES = 0.41; p < .05). Moreover, children attending these schools spent less time in SB at follow-up (ES = 0.33), although this effect was non-significant. No significant effects were found on MVPA. A school-centered multicomponent PA intervention holds the potential to activate children, but a comprehensive set of intervention elements with a sufficient magnitude is necessary to achieve at least moderate effect sizes.
MULTIFILE
The aim of the current study was to examine the effectiveness of a school-centered multicomponent PA intervention, called ‘Active Living’, on children's daily PA levels. A quasi-experimental design was used including 9 intervention schools and 9 matched control schools located in the Netherlands. The baseline measurement took place between March–June 2013, and follow-up measurements were conducted 12 months afterwards. Accelerometer (ActiGraph, GT3X +) data of 520 children aged 8–11 years were collected and supplemented with demographics and weather conditions data. Implementation magnitude of the interventions was measured by keeping logbooks on the number of implemented physical environmental interventions (PEIs) and social environmental interventions (SEIs). Multilevel multivariate linear regression analyses were used to study changes in sedentary behavior (SB), light physical activity (LPA) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) between baseline and follow-up. Finally, effect sizes (ESs) were calculated using Cohen's d. No pooled effects on PA and SB were found between children exposed and not exposed to Active Living after 12 months. However, children attending Active Living schools that implemented larger numbers of both PEIs and SEIs engaged in 15 more minutes of LPA per weekday at follow-up than children in the control condition (ES = 0.41; p < .05). Moreover, children attending these schools spent less time in SB at follow-up (ES = 0.33), although this effect was non-significant. No significant effects were found on MVPA. A school-centered multicomponent PA intervention holds the potential to activate children, but a comprehensive set of intervention elements with a sufficient magnitude is necessary to achieve at least moderate effect sizes.
MULTIFILE
Background: Due to differences in the definition of frailty, many different screening instruments have been developed. However, the predictive validity of these instruments among community-dwelling older people remains uncertain. Objective: To investigate whether combined (i.e. sequential or parallel) use of available frailty instruments improves the predictive power of dependency in (instrumental) activities of daily living ((I)ADL), mortality and hospitalization. Design, setting and participants: A prospective cohort study with two-year followup was conducted among pre-frail and frail community-dwelling older people in the Netherlands. Measurements: Four combinations of two highly specific frailty instruments (Frailty Phenotype, Frailty Index) and two highly sensitive instruments (Tilburg Frailty Indicator, Groningen Frailty Indicator) were investigated. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for all single instruments as well as for the four combinations, sequential and parallel. Results: 2,420 individuals participated (mean age 76.3 ± 6.6 years, 60.5% female) in our study. Sequential use increased the levels of specificity, as expected, whereas the PPV hardly increased. Parallel use increased the levels of sensitivity, although the NPV hardly increased. Conclusions: Applying two frailty instruments sequential or parallel might not be a solution for achieving better predictions of frailty in community-dwelling older people. Our results show that the combination of different screening instruments does not improve predictive validity. However, as this is one of the first studies to investigate the combined use of screening instruments, we recommend further exploration of other combinations of instruments among other study populations.
Physical rehabilitation programs revolve around the repetitive execution of exercises since it has been proven to lead to better rehabilitation results. Although beginning the motor (re)learning process early is paramount to obtain good recovery outcomes, patients do not normally see/experience any short-term improvement, which has a toll on their motivation. Therefore, patients find it difficult to stay engaged in seemingly mundane exercises, not only in terms of adhering to the rehabilitation program, but also in terms of proper execution of the movements. One way in which this motivation problem has been tackled is to employ games in the rehabilitation process. These games are designed to reward patients for performing the exercises correctly or regularly. The rewards can take many forms, for instance providing an experience that is engaging (fun), one that is aesthetically pleasing (appealing visual and aural feedback), or one that employs gamification elements such as points, badges, or achievements. However, even though some of these serious game systems are designed together with physiotherapists and with the patients’ needs in mind, many of them end up not being used consistently during physical rehabilitation past the first few sessions (i.e. novelty effect). Thus, in this project, we aim to 1) Identify, by means of literature reviews, focus groups, and interviews with the involved stakeholders, why this is happening, 2) Develop a set of guidelines for the successful deployment of serious games for rehabilitation, and 3) Develop an initial implementation process and ideas for potential serious games. In a follow-up application, we intend to build on this knowledge and apply it in the design of a (set of) serious game for rehabilitation to be deployed at one of the partners centers and conduct a longitudinal evaluation to measure the success of the application of the deployment guidelines.
