MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402758911 · doi:10.3390/healthcare12191912

Quantifying Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in Adults with Intellectual Disability: A Scoping Review of Assessment Methodologies

2024· review· en· W4402758911 on OpenAlexaff
Cora J. Firkin, Iva Obrusníková, Laura C. Koch

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredibilityData collectionInclusion (mineral)Intellectual disabilityWearable computerApplied psychologyPsychologyMedicineComputer sciencePsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: Methodologies for assessing behavior form the foundation of health promotion and disease prevention. Physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB) assessment methodologies have predominantly been developed for adults without an intellectual disability (ID), raising credibility concerns for adults with ID. The purpose was to synthesize the current state of assessment methodologies for quantifying PA and SB volume in the free-living setting for adults with an ID. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, eleven databases were searched through December 2023, yielding 8174 records. Data were extracted in Covidence (v.2.0), obtaining quantified PA and SB volume and assessment methodology characteristics across data collection and analysis, including tool(s) and technique(s) used, preparatory actions taken, instructions provided, and behavioral strategies employed during data collection. Results: Of the 8174 articles screened, 91 met the inclusion criteria. Common metrics included minutes/hours per day/week and steps per day/week. Despite 80% of the studies using objective techniques, substantial variation existed across studies regarding wearable models, sampling frequency and epoch length settings, calibration protocols, wearable placements, and data processing techniques. Limited studies provided instructions that did not exclusively rely on spoken language. Behavioral strategies varied, including self-monitoring, providing assistance or supervision, administering questionnaires verbally, issuing reminders, and offering monetary incentives. Conclusions: This review underscores the need for greater consistency and accessibility in PA and SB assessment methodology for adults with ID. Tailored preparation, instruction, and behavioral strategies may enhance assessment viability and suitability for adults with ID, with or without caregiver or researcher involvement in the free-living setting.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.169
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.169
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.008
Bibliometrics0.0290.026
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.466
GPT teacher head0.586
Teacher spread0.121 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcareSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207