Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36858478›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Examining the acceptability of actigraphic devices in children using qualitative and quantitative approaches: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anna Charlotte Morris, Laurence Telesia, Alice Wickersham, Sophie Epstein, Faith Matcham, Edmund Sonuga-Barke, Johnny Downs

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 51% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anna Charlotte MorrisCAMHS Digital Lab, Dept of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, UK, London, UK anna.morris@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8691-9653
Laurence TelesiaCAMHS Digital Lab, Dept of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, UK, London, UK.
Alice WickershamCAMHS Digital Lab, Dept of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, UK, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7402-7690
Sophie EpsteinCAMHS Digital Lab, Dept of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, UK, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2118-908X
Faith MatchamSchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, Brighton and Hove, UK.
Edmund Sonuga-BarkeDept of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Johnny DownsCAMHS Digital Lab, Dept of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, UK, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8061-295X
King's College London · GBUniversity of Sussex · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L017105/1Medical Research Council MR/T001437/1Medical Research Council MR/T046864/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionActigraphy is commonly used to record free living physical activity in both typically and atypically developing children. While the accuracy and reliability of actigraphy have been explored extensively, research regarding young people's opinion towards these devices is scarce. This review aims to identify and synthesise evidence relating to the acceptability of actigraphic devices in 5-11 year olds. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Database searches will be applied to Embase, MEDLINE, PsychInfo and Social Policy and Practice through the OVID interface; and Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), British Education Index and CINAHL through the EBSCO interface from January 2018 until February 2023. Supplementary forward and backward citation and grey literature database searches, including Healthcare Management Information Consortium (HMIC) and PsycEXTRA will be conducted. Qualitative and quantitative studies, excluding review articles and meta-analyses, will be eligible, without date restrictions. Article screening and data extraction will be undertaken by two review authors and disagreements will be deferred to a third reviewer. The primary outcome, actigraphic acceptability, will derive from the narrative synthesis of the main themes identified from included qualitative literature and pooled descriptive statistics relating to acceptability identified from quantitative literature. Subgroup analyses will determine if acceptability changes as a function of the key participant and actigraphic device factors. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review as it uses data from previously published literature. The results will be presented in a manuscript and published in a peer review journal and will be considered alongside a separate stream of codesign research to inform the development of a novel child-worn actigraphic device. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021232466.

Indexed as

ActigraphyReview Literature as TopicAdolescentDatabases, FactualHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicReproducibility of ResultsSystematic Reviews as Topicchild & adolescent psychiatrycommunity child healthhealth informaticssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36858478
PMCPMC9980313
OpenAlexW4322757739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.