Energy Expenditure in Institutionalized Older Adults: Validation of SenseWear Mini

Physical and Motor Fitness Tests for Older Adults Living in Nursing Homes: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aimed to identify the physical/motor fitness tests for nursing home residents and to examine their psychometric properties. Electronic databases were searched for articles published between January 2005 and October 2021 using MeSh terms and relevant keywords. Of the total of 4196 studies identified, 3914 were excluded based on title, abstracts, or because they were duplicates. The remaining 282 studies were full-text analyzed, and 41 were excluded, resulting in 241 studies included in the review. The most common physical component assessed was muscle strength; 174 (72.2%) studies assessed this component. Balance (138 studies, 57.3%) and agility (102 studies, 42.3%) were the second and third components, respectively, most widely assessed. In this review, we also describe the most used assessment tests for each physical/motor component. Some potentially relevant components such as manual dexterity and proprioception have been little considered. There are few studies assessing the psychometric properties of the tests for nursing home residents, although the data show that, in general, they are reliable. This review provides valuable information to researchers and health-care professionals regarding the physical/motor tests used in nursing home residences, helping them select the screening tools that could most closely fit their study objectives.

Validity of One-Day Physical Activity Recall for Estimating Total Energy Expenditure in Elderly Residents at Long-Term Care Facilities: CLinical EValuation of Energy Requirements Study (CLEVER Study)

Malnutrition is a severe problem among elderly residents living in long-term care facilities. A simple and accurate estimation for total daily energy expenditure (TEE) is required in order to provide them with an adequate amount of food. The purpose of this study was to validate a physical activity assessment tool for estimating TEE among elderly residents. The data of 58 subjects aged 69-99 y were analyzed in this study. The one-day physical activity recall was filled out by facility staff for a typical day. TEE was measured by the doubly labeled water (DLW) method (TEE_DLW), and predicted by one-day physical activity recall using the basal metabolic rate (pTEE_BMR) and body weight (pTEE_BW). The TEE_DLW, pTEE_BMR and pTEE_BW were 1,129±196 kcal/d, 1,186±251 kcal/d and 1,326±236 kcal/d, respectively. In a regression model, body weight, movement means and sex explained 39.0% of the variance in the difference between pTEE_BMR and TEE_DLW (p<0.05). Percentage of fat mass, body weight, and Barthel Index except mobility explained 47.3% of the variance in the difference between pTEE_BW and TEE_DLW (p<0.05). The current results suggested that pTEE_BW is not recommended to estimate TEE because the error depends on body size, and pTEE_BMR was significantly correlated with TEE_DLW but also included systematic errors in elderly residents. In order to improve the accuracy of the present assessment to estimate TEE, it is necessary to establish a new equation of basal metabolic rate for elderly residents and consider sex and movement means to estimate TEE.

SenseWearMini and Actigraph GT3X Accelerometer Classification of Observed Sedentary and Light-Intensity Physical Activities in a Laboratory Setting

Purpose: To compare the ability of SenseWear Mini (SWm) and Actigraph GT3X (AG₃) accelerometers to differentiate between healthy adults' observed sedentary and light activities in a laboratory setting. Methods: The 22 participants (15 women, 7 men), ages 19 to 72 years, wore SWm and AG₃ monitors and performed five sedentary and four light activities for 5 minutes each while observed in a laboratory setting. Performance was examined through comparisons of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios. Correct identification of both types of activities was examined using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: Both monitors demonstrated excellent ability to identify sedentary activities (sensitivity>0.89). The SWm monitor was better at identifying light activities (specificity 0.61-0.71) than the AG₃ monitor (specificity 0.27-0.47) and thus also showed a greater ability to correctly identify both sedentary and light activities (SWm AUC 0.84; AG₃ AUC 0.62-0.73). Conclusions: SWm may be a more suitable monitor for detecting time spent in sedentary and light-intensity activities. This finding has clinical and research relevance for evaluation of time spent in lower intensity physical activities by sedentary adults.