ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2024
Feasibility of a laboratory-based protocol for measuring energy expenditure and accelerometer calibration in adults with intellectual disabilities.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adults with intellectual disabilities experience numerous health inequalities. Targeting unhealthy lifestyle behaviours, such as high levels of sedentary behaviour and overweight/obesity, is a priority area for improving the health and adults with intellectual disabilities and reducing inequalities. Energy expenditure is a fundamental component of numerous health behaviours and an essential component of various free-living behaviour measurements, e.g. accelerometry. However, little is known about energy expenditure in adults with intellectual disabilities and no population-specific accelerometer data interpretation methods have been calibrated. The limited research in this area suggests that adults with intellectual disabilities have a higher energy expenditure, which requires further exploration, and could have significant impacts of device calibration. However, due to the complex methods required for measuring energy expenditure, it is essential to first evaluate feasibility and develop an effective protocol. This study aims to test the feasibility of a laboratory-based protocol to enable the measurement of energy expenditure and accelerometer calibration in adults with intellectual disabilities.We aimed to recruit ten adults (≥ 18 years) with intellectual disabilities. The protocol involved a total of nine sedentary, stationary, and physical activities, e.g. sitting, lying down, standing, and treadmill walking. Each activity was for 5 min, with one 10 min lying down activity to measure resting energy expenditure. Breath by breath respiratory gas exchange and accelerometry (ActiGraph and ActivPAL) were measured during each activity. Feasibility was assessed descriptively using recruitment and outcome measurement completion rates, and participant/stakeholder feedback.Ten adults (N = 7 female) with intellectual disabilities participated in this study. The recruitment rate was 50% and 90% completed the protocol and all outcome measures. Therefore, the recruitment strategy and protocol are feasible.This study addresses a significant gap in our knowledge relating to exercise laboratory-based research for adults with intellectual disabilities The findings from this study provide essential data that can be used to inform the development of future protocols to measure energy expenditure and for accelerometer calibration in adults with intellectual disabilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.