Understanding and validating accelerometry as a measure of physical activity in children with intellectual disabilities

Background Physical activity in children with intellectual disabilities is a neglected area of study, which is most apparent in relation to physical activity measurement research. Although objective measures, specifically accelerometers, are widely used in research involving children with intellectual disabilities, existing research is based on measurement methods and data interpretation techniques generalised from typically developing children. However, due to physiological and biomechanical differences between these populations, questions have been raised in the existing literature on the validity of generalising data interpretation techniques from typically developing children to children with intellectual disabilities. Therefore, there is a need to conduct population-specific measurement research for children with intellectual disabilities and develop valid methods to interpret accelerometer data, which will increase our understanding of physical activity in this population. Methods Study 1: A systematic review was initially conducted to increase the knowledge base on how accelerometers were used within existing physical activity research involving children with intellectual disabilities and to identify important areas for future research. A systematic search strategy was used to identify relevant articles which used accelerometry-based monitors to quantify activity levels in ambulatory children with intellectual disabilities. Based on best practice guidelines, a novel form was developed to extract data based on 17 research components of accelerometer use. Accelerometer use in relation to best practice guidelines was calculated using percentage scores on a study-by-study and component-by-component basis. Study 2: To investigate the effect of data interpretation methods on the estimation of physical activity intensity in children with intellectual disabilities, a secondary data analysis was conducted. Nine existing sets of child-specific ActiGraph intensity cut points were applied to accelerometer data collected from 10 children with intellectual disabilities during an activity session. Four one-way repeated measures ANOVAs were used to examine differences in estimated time spent in sedentary, moderate, vigorous, and moderate to vigorous intensity activity. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni adjustments were additionally used to identify where significant differences occurred. Study 3: The feasibility on a laboratory-based calibration protocol developed for typically developing children was investigated in children with intellectual disabilities. Specifically, the feasibility of activities, measurements, and recruitment was investigated. Five children with intellectual disabilities and five typically developing children participated in 14 treadmill-based and free-living activities. In addition, resting energy expenditure was measured and a treadmill-based graded exercise test was used to assess cardiorespiratory fitness. Breath-by-breath respiratory gas exchange and accelerometry were continually measured during all activities. Feasibility was assessed using observations, activity completion rates, and respiratory data. Study 4: Thirty-six children with intellectual disabilities participated in a semi-structured school-based physical activity session to calibrate accelerometry for the estimation of physical activity intensity. Participants wore a hip-mounted ActiGraph wGT3X+ accelerometer, with direct observation (SOFIT) used as the criterion measure. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were conducted to determine the optimal accelerometer cut points for sedentary, moderate, and vigorous intensity physical activity. Study 5: To cross-validate the calibrated cut points and compare classification accuracy with existing cut points developed in typically developing children, a sub-sample of 14 children with intellectual disabilities who participated in the school-based sessions, as described in Study 4, were included in this study. To examine the validity, classification agreement was investigated between the criterion measure of SOFIT and each set of cut points using sensitivity, specificity, total agreement, and Cohen’s kappa scores. Results Study 1: Ten full text articles were included in this review. The percentage of review criteria met ranged from 12%−47%. Various methods of accelerometer use were reported, with most use decisions not based on population-specific research. A lack of measurement research, specifically the calibration/validation of accelerometers for children with intellectual disabilities, is limiting the ability of researchers to make appropriate and valid accelerometer use decisions. Study 2: The choice of cut points had significant and clinically meaningful effects on the estimation of physical activity intensity and sedentary behaviour. For the 71-minute session, estimations for time spent in each intensity between cut points ranged from: sedentary = 9.50 (± 4.97) to 31.90 (± 6.77) minutes; moderate = 8.10 (± 4.07) to 40.40 (± 5.74) minutes; vigorous = 0.00 (± .00) to 17.40 (± 6.54) minutes; and moderate to vigorous = 8.80 (± 4.64) to 46.50 (± 6.02) minutes. Study 3: All typically developing participants and one participant with intellectual disabilities completed the protocol. No participant met the maximal criteria for the graded exercise test or attained a steady state during the resting measurements. Limitations were identified with the usability of respiratory gas exchange equipment and the validity of measurements. The school-based recruitment strategy was not effective, with a participation rate of 6%. Therefore, a laboratory-based calibration protocol was not feasible for children with intellectual disabilities. Study 4: The optimal vertical axis cut points (cpm) were ≤ 507 (sedentary), 1008−2300 (moderate), and ≥ 2301 (vigorous). Sensitivity scores ranged from 81−88%, specificity 81−85%, and AUC .87−.94. The optimal vector magnitude cut points (cpm) were ≤ 1863 (sedentary), ≥ 2610 (moderate) and ≥ 4215 (vigorous). Sensitivity scores ranged from 80−86%, specificity 77−82%, and AUC .86−.92. Therefore, the vertical axis cut points provide a higher level of accuracy in comparison to the vector magnitude cut points. Study 5: Substantial to excellent classification agreement was found for the calibrated cut points. The calibrated sedentary cut point (ĸ =.66) provided comparable classification agreement with existing cut points (ĸ =.55−.67). However, the existing moderate and vigorous cut points demonstrated low sensitivity (0.33−33.33% and 1.33−53.00%, respectively) and disproportionately high specificity (75.44−.98.12% and 94.61−100.00%, respectively), indicating that cut points developed in typically developing children are too high to accurately classify physical activity intensity in children with intellectual disabilities. Conclusions The studies reported in this thesis are the first to calibrate and validate accelerometry for the estimation of physical activity intensity in children with intellectual disabilities. In comparison with typically developing children, children with intellectual disabilities require lower cut points for the classification of moderate and vigorous intensity activity. Therefore, generalising existing cut points to children with intellectual disabilities will underestimate physical activity and introduce systematic measurement error, which could be a contributing factor to the low levels of physical activity reported for children with intellectual disabilities in previous research.

Tackling health inequalities in primary care: an exploration of GPs’ experience at the frontline

In Scotland, life expectancy and health outcomes are strongly tied to socioeconomic status. Specifically, socioeconomically deprived areas suffer disproportionately from high levels of premature multimorbidity and mortality. To tackle these inequalities in health, challenges in the most deprived areas must be addressed. One avenue that merits attention is the potential role of general medical practitioners (GPs) in helping to address health inequalities, particularly due to their long-term presence in deprived communities, their role in improving patient and population health, and their potential advocacy role on behalf of their patients. GPs can be seen as what Lipsky calls ‘street-level bureaucrats’ due to their considerable autonomy in the decisions they make surrounding individual patient needs, yet practising under the bureaucratic structure of the NHS. While previous research has examined the applicability of Lipsky’s framework to the role of GPs, there has been very little research exploring how GPs negotiate between the multiple identities in their work, how GPs ‘socially construct’ their patients, how GPs view their potential role as ‘advocate’, and what this means in terms of the contribution of GPs to addressing existing inequalities in health. Using semi-structured interviews, this study explored the experience and views of 24 GPs working in some of Scotland’s most deprived practices to understand how they might combat this growing health divide via the mitigation (and potential prevention) of existing health inequalities. Participants were selected based on several criteria including practice deprivation level and their individual involvement in the Deep End project, which is an informal network comprising the 100 most deprived general practices in Scotland. The research focused on understanding GPs’ perceptions of their work including its broader implications, within their practice, the communities within which they practise, and the health system as a whole. The concept of street-level bureaucracy proved to be useful in understanding GPs’ frontline work and how they negotiate dilemmas. However, this research demonstrated the need to look beyond Lipsky’s framework in order to understand how GPs reconcile their multiple identities, including advocate and manager. As a result, the term ‘street-level professional’ is offered to capture more fully the multiple identities which GPs inhabit and to explain how GPs’ elite status positions them to engage in political and policy advocacy. This study also provides evidence that GPs’ social constructions of patients are linked not only to how GPs conceptualise the causes of health inequalities, but also to how they view their role in tackling them. In line with this, the interviews established that many GPs felt they could make a difference through advocacy efforts at individual, community and policy/political levels. Furthermore, the study draws attention to the importance of practitioner-led groups—such as the Deep End project—in supporting GPs’ efforts and providing a platform for their advocacy. Within this study, a range of GPs’ views have been explored based on the sample. While it is unclear how common these views are amongst GPs in general, the study revealed that there is considerable scope for ‘political GPs’ who choose to exercise discretion in their communities and beyond. Consequently, GPs working in deprived areas should be encouraged to use their professional status and political clout not only to strengthen local communities, but also to advocate for policy change that might potentially affect the degree of disadvantage of their patients, and levels of social and health inequalities more generally.