PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
\"Push\" components of mobile health interventions may be promising to create conscious awareness of habitual sedentary behavior; however, the effect of these components on the near-time, proximal outcome, being breaks in sedentary behavior immediately after receiving a push notification, is still unknown, especially in older adults.
The aims of this study are to examine if older adults break their sedentary behavior immediately after receiving personalized haptic feedback on prolonged sedentary behavior and if the percentage of breaks differs depending on the time of the day when the feedback is provided.
A total of 26 Flemish older adults (mean age 64.4 years, SD 3.8) wore a triaxial accelerometer (Activator, PAL Technologies Ltd) for 3 weeks. The accelerometer generated personalized haptic feedback by means of vibrations each time a participant sat for 30 uninterrupted minutes. Accelerometer data on sedentary behavior were used to estimate the proximal outcome, which was sedentary behavior breaks immediately (within 1, 3, and 5 minutes) after receiving personalized haptic feedback. Generalized estimating equations were used to investigate whether or not participants broke up their sedentary behavior immediately after receiving haptic feedback. A time-related variable was added to the model to investigate if the sedentary behavior breaks differed depending on the time of day.
A total of 2628 vibrations were provided to the participants during the 3-week intervention period. Of these 2628 vibrations, 379 (14.4%), 570 (21.7%), and 798 (30.4%) resulted in a sedentary behavior break within 1, 3 and 5 minutes, respectively. Although the 1-minute interval did not reveal significant differences in the percentage of breaks depending on the time at which the haptic feedback was provided, the 3- and 5-minute intervals did show significant differences in the percentage of breaks depending on the time at which the haptic feedback was provided. Concretely, the percentage of sedentary behavior breaks was significantly higher if personalized haptic feedback was provided between noon and 3 PM compared to if the feedback was provided between 6 and 9 AM (odds ratio 1.58, 95% CI 1.01-2.47, within 3 minutes; odds ratio 1.78, 95% CI 1.11-2.84, within 5 minutes).
The majority of haptic vibrations, especially those in the morning, did not result in a break in the sedentary behavior of older adults. As such, simply bringing habitual sedentary behavior into conscious awareness seems to be insufficient to target sedentary behavior. More research is needed to optimize push components in interventions aimed at the reduction of the sedentary behavior of older adults.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04003324; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04003324.
The aims of this study are to examine if older adults break their sedentary behavior immediately after receiving personalized haptic feedback on prolonged sedentary behavior and if the percentage of breaks differs depending on the time of the day when the feedback is provided.
A total of 26 Flemish older adults (mean age 64.4 years, SD 3.8) wore a triaxial accelerometer (Activator, PAL Technologies Ltd) for 3 weeks. The accelerometer generated personalized haptic feedback by means of vibrations each time a participant sat for 30 uninterrupted minutes. Accelerometer data on sedentary behavior were used to estimate the proximal outcome, which was sedentary behavior breaks immediately (within 1, 3, and 5 minutes) after receiving personalized haptic feedback. Generalized estimating equations were used to investigate whether or not participants broke up their sedentary behavior immediately after receiving haptic feedback. A time-related variable was added to the model to investigate if the sedentary behavior breaks differed depending on the time of day.
A total of 2628 vibrations were provided to the participants during the 3-week intervention period. Of these 2628 vibrations, 379 (14.4%), 570 (21.7%), and 798 (30.4%) resulted in a sedentary behavior break within 1, 3 and 5 minutes, respectively. Although the 1-minute interval did not reveal significant differences in the percentage of breaks depending on the time at which the haptic feedback was provided, the 3- and 5-minute intervals did show significant differences in the percentage of breaks depending on the time at which the haptic feedback was provided. Concretely, the percentage of sedentary behavior breaks was significantly higher if personalized haptic feedback was provided between noon and 3 PM compared to if the feedback was provided between 6 and 9 AM (odds ratio 1.58, 95% CI 1.01-2.47, within 3 minutes; odds ratio 1.78, 95% CI 1.11-2.84, within 5 minutes).
The majority of haptic vibrations, especially those in the morning, did not result in a break in the sedentary behavior of older adults. As such, simply bringing habitual sedentary behavior into conscious awareness seems to be insufficient to target sedentary behavior. More research is needed to optimize push components in interventions aimed at the reduction of the sedentary behavior of older adults.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04003324; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04003324.
摘要：
移动健康干预的“推动”组件可能有望创造对习惯久坐行为的有意识意识；然而，这些成分对近距离的影响，近端结果,在收到推送通知后立即中断久坐行为，仍然未知，尤其是老年人。
这项研究的目的是检查老年人是否在收到关于长期久坐行为的个性化触觉反馈后立即打破他们的久坐行为，以及休息的百分比是否根据提供反馈的一天中的时间而有所不同。
共有26名佛兰德老年人（平均年龄64.4岁，SD3.8)佩戴三轴加速度计(激活器，PALTechnologiesLtd)为期3周。每当参与者连续坐30分钟时，加速度计都会通过振动来生成个性化的触觉反馈。久坐行为的加速度计数据用于估计近端结果，在收到个性化触觉反馈后，久坐行为立即中断（在1、3和5分钟内）。使用广义估计方程来调查参与者在收到触觉反馈后是否立即打破了他们的久坐行为。在模型中添加了与时间相关的变量，以研究久坐行为是否因一天中的时间而异。
在3周的干预期内，总共向参与者提供了2628次振动。在这2628个振动中，379（14.4%），570（21.7%），798（30.4％）在1、3和5分钟内导致久坐行为中断，分别。尽管1分钟间隔没有显示出根据提供触觉反馈的时间的中断百分比的显着差异，根据提供触觉反馈的时间,3分钟和5分钟的间隔确实显示出中断百分比的显著差异.具体而言,如果在中午至下午3点之间提供个性化触觉反馈,则与在上午6~9点之间提供反馈相比,久坐行为中断的百分比显著更高(3分钟内比值比1.58,95%CI1.01~2.47;5分钟内比值比1.78,95%CI1.11~2.84).
大部分的触觉振动,尤其是那些早上的人，不会导致老年人久坐行为的中断。因此，仅仅将习惯性的久坐行为带入意识意识似乎不足以针对久坐行为。需要更多的研究来优化旨在减少老年人久坐行为的干预措施中的推动成分。
ClinicalTrials.govNCT04003324;https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04003324.
这项研究的目的是检查老年人是否在收到关于长期久坐行为的个性化触觉反馈后立即打破他们的久坐行为，以及休息的百分比是否根据提供反馈的一天中的时间而有所不同。
共有26名佛兰德老年人（平均年龄64.4岁，SD3.8)佩戴三轴加速度计(激活器，PALTechnologiesLtd)为期3周。每当参与者连续坐30分钟时，加速度计都会通过振动来生成个性化的触觉反馈。久坐行为的加速度计数据用于估计近端结果，在收到个性化触觉反馈后，久坐行为立即中断（在1、3和5分钟内）。使用广义估计方程来调查参与者在收到触觉反馈后是否立即打破了他们的久坐行为。在模型中添加了与时间相关的变量，以研究久坐行为是否因一天中的时间而异。
在3周的干预期内，总共向参与者提供了2628次振动。在这2628个振动中，379（14.4%），570（21.7%），798（30.4％）在1、3和5分钟内导致久坐行为中断，分别。尽管1分钟间隔没有显示出根据提供触觉反馈的时间的中断百分比的显着差异，根据提供触觉反馈的时间,3分钟和5分钟的间隔确实显示出中断百分比的显著差异.具体而言,如果在中午至下午3点之间提供个性化触觉反馈,则与在上午6~9点之间提供反馈相比,久坐行为中断的百分比显著更高(3分钟内比值比1.58,95%CI1.01~2.47;5分钟内比值比1.78,95%CI1.11~2.84).
大部分的触觉振动,尤其是那些早上的人，不会导致老年人久坐行为的中断。因此，仅仅将习惯性的久坐行为带入意识意识似乎不足以针对久坐行为。需要更多的研究来优化旨在减少老年人久坐行为的干预措施中的推动成分。
ClinicalTrials.govNCT04003324;https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04003324.
