Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Older people--Hospital care.
- Creators: Buman, Matthew P
Description
Background: Heart failure is the leading cause of hospitalization in older adults and has the highest 30-day readmission rate of all diagnoses. An estimated 30 to 60 percent of older adults lose some degree of physical function in the course of an acute hospital stay. Few studies have addressed the role of posture and mobility in contributing to, or improving, physical function in older hospitalized adults. No study to date that we are aware of has addressed this in the older heart failure population.
Purpose: To investigate the predictive value of mobility during a hospital stay and patterns of mobility during the month following discharge on hospital readmission and 30-day changes in functional status in older heart failure patients.
Methods: This was a prospective observational study of 21 older (ages 60+) patients admitted with a primary diagnosis of heart failure. Patients wore two inclinometric accelerometers (rib area and thigh) to record posture and an accelerometer placed at the ankle to record ambulatory activity. Patients wore all sensors continuously during hospitalization and the ankle accelerometer for 30 days after hospital discharge. Function was assessed in all patients the day after hospital discharge and again at 30 days post-discharge.
Results: Five patients (23.8%) were readmitted within the 30 day post-discharge period. None of the hospital or post-discharge mobility measures were associated with readmission after adjustment for covariates. Higher percent lying time in the hospital was associated with slower Timed Up and Go (TUG) time (b = .08, p = .01) and poorer hand grip strength (b = -13.94, p = .02) at 30 days post-discharge. Higher daily stepping activity during the 30 day post-discharge period was marginally associated with improvements in SPPB scores at 30 days (b = <.001, p = .06).
Conclusion: For older heart failure patients, increased time lying while hospitalized is associated with slower walking time and poor hand grip strength 30 days after discharge. Higher daily stepping after discharge may be associated with improvements in physical function at 30 days.
Purpose: To investigate the predictive value of mobility during a hospital stay and patterns of mobility during the month following discharge on hospital readmission and 30-day changes in functional status in older heart failure patients.
Methods: This was a prospective observational study of 21 older (ages 60+) patients admitted with a primary diagnosis of heart failure. Patients wore two inclinometric accelerometers (rib area and thigh) to record posture and an accelerometer placed at the ankle to record ambulatory activity. Patients wore all sensors continuously during hospitalization and the ankle accelerometer for 30 days after hospital discharge. Function was assessed in all patients the day after hospital discharge and again at 30 days post-discharge.
Results: Five patients (23.8%) were readmitted within the 30 day post-discharge period. None of the hospital or post-discharge mobility measures were associated with readmission after adjustment for covariates. Higher percent lying time in the hospital was associated with slower Timed Up and Go (TUG) time (b = .08, p = .01) and poorer hand grip strength (b = -13.94, p = .02) at 30 days post-discharge. Higher daily stepping activity during the 30 day post-discharge period was marginally associated with improvements in SPPB scores at 30 days (b = <.001, p = .06).
Conclusion: For older heart failure patients, increased time lying while hospitalized is associated with slower walking time and poor hand grip strength 30 days after discharge. Higher daily stepping after discharge may be associated with improvements in physical function at 30 days.
ContributorsFloegel, Theresa A (Author) / Buman, Matthew P (Thesis advisor) / Hooker, Steven (Committee member) / Dickinson, Jared (Committee member) / DerAnanian, Cheryl (Committee member) / McCarthy, Marianne (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
Description
Many individual-level behavioral interventions improve health and well-being. However, most interventions exhibit considerable heterogeneity in response. Put differently, what might be effective on average might not be effective for specific individuals. From an individual’s perspective, many healthy behaviors exist that seem to have a positive impact. However, few existing tools support people in identifying interventions that work for them, personally.
One approach to support such personalization is via self-experimentation using single-case designs. ‘Hack Your Health’ is a tool that guides individuals through an 18-day self-experiment to test if an intervention they choose (e.g., meditation, gratitude journaling) improves their own psychological well-being (e.g., stress, happiness), whether it fits in their routine, and whether they enjoy it.
The purpose of this work was to conduct a formative evaluation of Hack Your Health to examine user burden, adherence, and to evaluate its usefulness in supporting decision-making about a health intervention. A mixed-methods approach was used, and two versions of the tool were tested via two waves of participants (Wave 1, N=20; Wave 2, N=8). Participants completed their self-experiments and provided feedback via follow-up surveys (n=26) and interviews (n=20).
Findings indicated that the tool had high usability and low burden overall. Average survey completion rate was 91%, and compliance to protocol was 72%. Overall, participants found the experience useful to test if their chosen intervention helped them. However, there were discrepancies between participants’ intuition about intervention effect and results from analyses. Participants often relied on intuition/lived experience over results for decision-making. This suggested that the usefulness of Hack Your Health in its current form might be through the structure, accountability, and means for self-reflection it provided rather than the specific experimental design/results. Additionally, situations where performing interventions within a rigorous/restrictive experimental set-up may not be appropriate (e.g., when goal is to assess intervention enjoyment) were uncovered. Plausible design implications include: longer experimental and phase durations, accounting for non-compliance, missingness, and proximal/acute effects, and exploring strategies to complement quantitative data with participants’ lived experiences with interventions to effectively support decision-making. Future work should explore ways to balance scientific rigor with participants’ needs for such decision-making.
One approach to support such personalization is via self-experimentation using single-case designs. ‘Hack Your Health’ is a tool that guides individuals through an 18-day self-experiment to test if an intervention they choose (e.g., meditation, gratitude journaling) improves their own psychological well-being (e.g., stress, happiness), whether it fits in their routine, and whether they enjoy it.
The purpose of this work was to conduct a formative evaluation of Hack Your Health to examine user burden, adherence, and to evaluate its usefulness in supporting decision-making about a health intervention. A mixed-methods approach was used, and two versions of the tool were tested via two waves of participants (Wave 1, N=20; Wave 2, N=8). Participants completed their self-experiments and provided feedback via follow-up surveys (n=26) and interviews (n=20).
Findings indicated that the tool had high usability and low burden overall. Average survey completion rate was 91%, and compliance to protocol was 72%. Overall, participants found the experience useful to test if their chosen intervention helped them. However, there were discrepancies between participants’ intuition about intervention effect and results from analyses. Participants often relied on intuition/lived experience over results for decision-making. This suggested that the usefulness of Hack Your Health in its current form might be through the structure, accountability, and means for self-reflection it provided rather than the specific experimental design/results. Additionally, situations where performing interventions within a rigorous/restrictive experimental set-up may not be appropriate (e.g., when goal is to assess intervention enjoyment) were uncovered. Plausible design implications include: longer experimental and phase durations, accounting for non-compliance, missingness, and proximal/acute effects, and exploring strategies to complement quantitative data with participants’ lived experiences with interventions to effectively support decision-making. Future work should explore ways to balance scientific rigor with participants’ needs for such decision-making.
ContributorsPhatak, Sayali Shekhar (Author) / Buman, Matthew P (Thesis advisor) / Hekler, Eric B. (Committee member) / Huberty, Jennifer L (Committee member) / Johnston, Erik W., 1977- (Committee member) / Swan, Pamela D (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019