| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Heimburg, Katarina, et al.
(författare)
-
Agreement between self-reported and objectively assessed physical activity among out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging. - 1475-0961 .- 1475-097X.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Low level of physical activity is a risk factor for new cardiac events in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survivors. Physical activity can be assessed by self-reporting or objectively by accelerometery.AIM: To investigate the agreement between self-reported and objectively assessed physical activity among OHCA survivors HYPOTHESIS: Self-reported levels of physical activity will show moderate agreement with objectively assessed levels of physical activity.METHOD: Cross-sectional study including OHCA survivors in Sweden, Denmark, and the United Kingdom. Two questions about moderate and vigorous intensity physical activity during the last week were used as self-reports. Moderate and vigorous intensity physical activity were objectively assessed with accelerometers (ActiGraph GT3X-BT) worn upon the right hip for 7 consecutive days.RESULTS: Forty-nine of 106 OHCA survivors answered the two questions for self-reporting and had 7 valid days of accelerometer assessment. More physically active days were registered by self-report compared with accelerometery for both moderate intensity (median 5 [3:7] vs. 3 [0:5] days; p < 0.001) and vigorous intensity (1 [0:3] vs. 0 [0:0] days; p < 0.001). Correlations between self-reported and accelerometer assessed physical activity were sufficient (moderate intensity: rs = 0.336, p = 0.018; vigorous intensity: rs = 0.375, p = 0.008), and agreements were fair and none to slight (moderate intensity: k = 0.269, p = 0.001; vigorous intensity: k = 0.148, p = 0.015). The categorization of self-reported versus objectively assessed physical activity showed that 26% versus 65% had a low level of physical activity.CONCLUSION: OHCA survivors reported more physically active days compared with the results of the accelerometer assessment and correlated sufficiently and agreed fairly and none to slightly.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Wise, Emily, et al.
(författare)
-
Moving beyond traditional measures – lessons from evaluating collaborative initiatives at Lund University
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Academic and Practitioner Proceedings of the 2021 University-Industry Interaction Conference Series: Challenges and Solutions for Fostering Entrepreneurial Universities and Collaborative Innovation. ; , s. 45-60
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Over the last decade, universities and other institutions of higher education (HEIs) worldwide have witnessed an evolution to their role relative to society – with increasing attention to external engagement and expectations on societal impact. This has fostered an upswing in activity as research and innovation funding bodies and universities alike explore new approaches to working with external engagement, and led to questions regarding how to evaluate the societal impact of these efforts. Although there are examples of national frameworks to evaluate research impact, the large majority of countries and HEIs around theworld are still experimenting with approaches to evidence and assess their pathway to societal impact. This paper aims to contribute to evolving practice in this field by presenting lessons from the evaluation of a new strategic instrument (thematic collaboration initiatives) at Lund University (LU), Sweden.The evaluation of the strategic instrument “thematic collaboration initiatives” encompassed both initiative/operational and LU leadership/strategic levels. The approach to the evaluation combined traditional measures and processes, together with new indicators and evaluation approaches. The evaluation hasresulted in a better understanding of the range of activities and outputs that one can expect from such collaborative initiatives – informing the selection of measures to include in evaluation efforts. The evaluation also provided new insights on how universities can work with and use evaluation to guide thefurther development of the university’s approach to fostering external engagement. Participatory processes and facilitated reflection were very beneficial to draw out multiple perspectives and possible implicationsfor future development of the instrument.
|
|
