Francesca Denton

Background: Long-term adherence to exercise is often poor for people with coronary heart disease (CHD) who have completed supervised, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of a remotely prescribed, delivered and monitored cardiac rehabilitation intervention using a wearable device to support long-term adherence to exercise and physical activity during maintenance of cardiac rehabilitation. Methods: After completing cardiac rehabilitation, 30 participants with CHD, will be randomised (1:1) to an intervention ( n = 15) or a usual care group ( n = 15) in a 12-month feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT). The intervention will comprise of an exercise consultation, personalised exercise prescription delivered via a wearable activity monitor using biometric feedback, regular monitoring via check-ins, and feedback text-messages for 6-months. Participants will be assessed at baseline (following completion of cardiac rehabilitation) and at three-, six-, and 12-months post-randomisation. The primary outcome will be feasibility, including assessment of eligibility, recruitment, adherence, and acceptability. Secondary outcomes will include exercise capacity, physical activity behaviours, cardiovascular disease risk and quality of life. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted at three-, six-, and 12-months post-randomisation (and with those who drop-out) to explore the acceptability of the study intervention and procedures. A questionnaire will be offered to those who decline participation. Discussion: The MAINTAIN study will evaluate the feasibility of conducting a future definitive multi-centre RCT testing a remotely prescribed and monitored long-term mHealth maintenance exercise programme, versus usual care, for people with CHD who have completed cardiac rehabilitation. Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05292287. Registered on 22/03/2022

Background: There is wide discrepancy in how published research defines and reports home-based exercise programmes. Studies consisting of fundamentally different designs have been labelled as home-based, making searching for relevant literature challenging and time consuming. This issue has been further highlighted by an increased demand for these programmes following the COVID-19 pandemic and associated government-imposed lockdowns. Purpose: To examine what specifically constitutes home-based exercise by: (1) developing definitions for a range of terms used when reporting exercise and physical activity programmes and (2) providing examples to contextualise these definitions for use when reporting exercise and physical activity programmes. Methods: A literature search was undertaken to identify previous attempts to define home-based exercise programmes. A working document, including initial definitions and examples were developed, which were then discussed between six experts for further refinement. Results: We generated definitions for universal key terms within three domains (and subdomains) of programme design: location (home-based, community/centre-based, or clinical setting), prescription (structured or unstructured) and delivery (supervised, facilitated, or unsupervised). Examples for possible combinations of design terms were produced. Conclusions: Definitions will provide consistency when using reporting tools and the intention is to discuss the issues presented as part of a Delphi study. This is of paramount importance due to the predicted increase in emerging research regarding home-based exercise.

Prolonged lockdown/restriction measures due to the COVID-19 pandemic have reportedly impacted opportunities to be physically active for a large proportion of the population in affected countries globally. The exact changes to physical activity and sedentary behaviours due to these measures have not been fully studied. Accordingly, the objective of this PROSPERO-registered systematic review is to evaluate the available evidence on physical activity and sedentary behaviours in the general population during COVID-19-related lockdown/restriction measures, compared to prior to restrictions being in place. Defined searches to identify eligible studies published in English, from November 2019 up to the date of submission, will be conducted using the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PSYCinfo, Coronavirus Research Database, Public Health Database, Publicly Available Content Database, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar. The applied inclusion criteria were selected to identify observational studies with no restrictions placed on participants, with outcomes regarding physical activity and/or sedentary behaviour during lockdown/restriction measures, and with comparisons for these outcomes to a time when no such measures were in place. Where appropriate, results from included studies will be pooled and effect estimates will be presented in random effects meta-analyses. To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first systematic review to evaluate one complete year of published data on the impact of COVID-19-related lockdown/restriction measures on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis will constitute the most up-to-date synthesis of published evidence on any such documented changes, and so will comprehensively inform clinical practitioners, public health agencies, researchers, policymakers and the general public regarding the effects of lockdown/restriction measures on both physical activity and sedentary behaviour.

Background: Mobile health technologies have advanced to now allow monitoring of the acute physiological responses to lifestyle behaviours. Our aim was to explore how people engaged with real-time feedback on their physical activity and glucose levels over several weeks. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with 26 participants (61.5% female, 56.6 years) at moderate-to-high risk of developing type 2 diabetes were conducted. Interviews were completed after participants took part in an intervention comprising a flash glucose monitor (Freestyle Libre) and a physical activity monitor (Fitbit Charge 2). Purposive sampling ensured representation of ages, genders and group allocations. Results: Inductive thematic analysis revealed how individuals intuitively used, interpreted and acted on feedback from wearable technologies. Six key themes emerged: triggers of engagement with the technologies, links between behaviour and health, lack of confidence, changes to movement behaviours, changes to diet and barriers to lifestyle behaviour change. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that accessing behavioural and physiological feedback can increase self-awareness of how lifestyle impacts short-term health. Some participants noticed a link between the feedback presented by the two devices and changed their behaviour but many did not. Training and educational support, as well as efforts to optimize how feedback is presented to users, are needed to sustain engagement and behaviour change. Extensions of this work to involve people with diabetes are also warranted to explore whether behavioural and physiological feedback in parallel can encourage better diabetes self-management. Trial registration: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN17545949, 12/05/2017, prospectively registered.

Background: Self-monitoring of behavior (namely, diet and physical activity) and physiology (namely, glucose) has been shown to be effective in type 2 diabetes (T2D) and prediabetes prevention. By combining self-monitoring technologies, the acute physiological consequences of behaviors could be shown, prompting greater consideration to physical activity levels today, which impact the risk of developing diabetes years or decades later. However, until recently, commercially available technologies have not been able to show individuals the health benefits of being physically active. Objective: The objective of this study was to examine the usage, feasibility, and acceptability of behavioral and physiological self-monitoring technologies in individuals at risk of developing T2D. Methods: A total of 45 adults aged ≥40 years and at moderate to high risk of T2D were recruited to take part in a 3-arm feasibility trial. Each participant was provided with a behavioral (Fitbit Charge 2) and physiological (FreeStyle Libre flash glucose monitor) monitor for 6 weeks, masked according to group allocation. Participants were allocated to glucose feedback (4 weeks) followed by glucose and physical activity (biobehavioral) feedback (2 weeks; group 1), physical activity feedback (4 weeks) followed by biobehavioral feedback (2 weeks; group 2), or biobehavioral feedback (6 weeks; group 3). Participant usage (including time spent on the apps and number of glucose scans) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were the feasibility (including recruitment and number of sensor displacements) and acceptability (including monitor wear time) of the intervention. Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted at the 6-week follow-up appointment. Results: For usage, time spent on the Fitbit and FreeStyle Libre apps declined over the 6 weeks for all groups. Of the FreeStyle Libre sensor scans conducted by participants, 17% (1798/10,582) recorded rising or falling trends in glucose, and 24% (13/45) of participants changed ≥1 of the physical activity goals. For feasibility, 49% (22/45) of participants completed the study using the minimum number of FreeStyle Libre sensors, and a total of 41 sensors were declared faulty or displaced. For acceptability, participants wore the Fitbit for 40.1 (SD 3.2) days, and 20% (9/45) of participants and 53% (24/45) of participants were prompted by email to charge or sync the Fitbit, respectively. Interviews unearthed participant perceptions on the study design by suggesting refinements to the eligibility criteria and highlighting important issues about the usability, wearability, and features of the technologies. Conclusions: Individuals at risk of developing T2D engaged with wearable digital health technologies providing behavioral and physiological feedback. Modifications are required to both the study and to commercially available technologies to maximize the chances of sustained usage and behavior change. The study and intervention were feasible to conduct and acceptable to most participants. Trial Registration: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 17545949; isrctn.com/ISRCTN17545949