Health-promoting physical activity of adults with developmental diabilities

Hele tekst

(1)1. Running title: HEALTH-PROMOTING PHYSICAL ACTIVITY. 2. HEALTH-PROMOTING PHYSICAL ACTIVITY OF ADULTS WITH. 3. MENTAL RETARDATION. 4. Heidi I. Stanish1, Viviene A. Temple2, Georgia C. Frey 3. 5. University of Massachusetts Boston1, University of Victoria2, Indiana University3. 6 7 AUTHOR NOTE. 8 9. Heidi I. Stanish PhD, Department of Exercise Science and Physical Education,. 10. University of Massachusetts Boston; Viviene A. Temple PhD, School of Physical. 11. Education, University of Victoria; Georgia C. Frey PhD, Department of Kinesiology,. 12. Indiana University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Heidi. 13. Stanish, Department of Exercise Science and Physical Education, UMass Boston, 100. 14. Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA, 02125-3393. Electronic mail may be sent to. 15. heidi.stanish@umb.edu.. 1.

(2) 1. ABSTRACT. 2. This review of literature describes the physical activity behavior of adults with mental. 3. retardation consistent with the U.S. Surgeon General’s recommendation of 30 minutes of. 4. moderate intensity physical activity on 5 or more days per week. The proportion of. 5. participants achieving this criterion ranges from 17.5% to 33%. These data are likely to. 6. be generous estimates of activity as individuals included in physical activity studies to. 7. date have been relatively young and healthy volunteers with mild to moderate limitations.. 8. Major sources of physical activity were walking and cycling for transport, chores and. 9. work, dancing, and Special Olympics. There is a pressing need to conduct studies using. 10. appropriately powered representative samples and to validate measures that assess. 11. physical activity less directly; including methodologies where proxy respondents are. 12. used. Accurate information about existing patterns of behavior will enhance the. 13. development of effective strategies to promote physical activity among persons with. 14. mental retardation.. 2.

(3) 1. KEY WORDS. 2. Mental Retardation; Physical Activity; Health Promotion. 3 4 5 6 7. CALLOUTS 1. The U.S. Surgeon General recommends that adults accrue 30 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity on most, preferably all, days of the week. 2. The proportion of adults with mental retardation achieving 30 minutes of. 8. moderate intensity physical activity on 5 or more days per week ranged from. 9. 17.5% to 33%.. 10. 3. A majority of participants were not accumulating sufficiently long bouts, or. 11. enough minutes per day, of physical activity to meet the Surgeon General’s. 12. recommendation.. 13. 4. Major sources of physical activity were walking and cycling for transport, chores. 14. and work, dancing, and Special Olympics. Walking for transport was by far the. 15. most prevalent form of physical activity; however, the intensity was often low or. 16. low-moderate.. 17. 3.

(4) 1 2. INTRODUCTION. Over the past 10 years government agencies have identified physical activity as a. 3. leading health indicator directly correlated with the development of certain chronic. 4. diseases such as obesity and diabetes. The standard recommendation is that accruing 30. 5. minutes of moderate intensity physical activity on most, preferably all, days of the week. 6. serves as a preventative health measure [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,. 7. 2000; World Heath Organization, 2003]. Moderate intensity physical activity. 8. corresponds to 3.5-7 Kilocalories/min or 3.0-6.0 metabolic equivalents (METs), which. 9. are multiples of resting energy expenditure (i.e., 3.0 METs = 3 x the cost of resting. 10. energy expenditure). This shift toward moderate intensity physical activity as a public. 11. health message is potentially more inclusive and realistic for the general population than. 12. previous recommendations that focused on vigorous exercise. From a public health. 13. perspective, physical activity has been clearly defined and operationalized as an. 14. attainable health behavior.. 15. While it is well documented that people with mental retardation (MR) experience. 16. high rates of morbidity and mortality associated with hypoactive diseases [Sutherland et. 17. al., 2002], little is known about physical activity as a preventative health behavior in this. 18. population. Individuals with MR comprise a subgroup that is considered predominantly. 19. sedentary and at elevated risk for health problems associated with inactivity [Rimmer and. 20. Braddock, 2002]. People with MR have higher rates of diabetes and high blood pressure. 21. than adults without MR [Draheim et al., 2002a; Janicki et al., 2002; Rimmer et al., 1995],. 22. low physical fitness levels [Fernhall and Pitetti, 2001; Graham and Reid, 2000], and high. 4.

(5) 1. obesity rates [Rimmer et al., 1993]. These health profiles are attributed to and suggestive. 2. of highly sedentary behavior, but there is a paucity of data to support this conclusion.. 3. People with MR are typically not included in large-scale population studies and. 4. there have been few attempts to document physical activity patterns or identify factors. 5. that influence activity in these individuals [Temple et al., in press]. Adults with MR have. 6. also received relatively less attention in health promotion efforts or physical activity. 7. campaigns. In 2001, the U.S. Surgeon General held a conference to address health. 8. disparities in people with MR and set an agenda to reduce these disparities. The resulting. 9. Closing the Gap document provided a national blueprint outlining goals and action steps. 10. to improve the health of this population segment [U.S. Public Health Service, 2002]. It is. 11. noted in the document that individuals with MR have fewer opportunities for exercise,. 12. and exercise and fitness were identified as a potential targets for health promotion.. 13. However, the term “physical activity” is not mentioned anywhere in the resource, which. 14. highlights a major disconnect from the health priorities specified for the general. 15. population [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000; World Heath. 16. Organization, 2003].. 17. People with disabilities are specifically mentioned in 5 of the 15 Healthy People. 18. 2010 physical activity goals. According to baseline data in this document 56% of people. 19. with disabilities engage in no leisure time activity compared to 36% of people without. 20. disabilities. The disparity between groups is less when examining those who engage in. 21. 30 minutes of activity 5 or more days (disabled = 12% v. non-disabled 16%), but. 22. becomes more pronounced when a 20 minutes, 3 days per week criteria is used (disabled. 23. = 23% v. nondisabled = 33%). Less than 20% of adults with disabilities engage in. 5.

(6) 1. vigorous activity that promotes fitness or activities that promote muscular strength [U.S.. 2. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000]. These statistics could be more. 3. representative of disability due to aging or other disease conditions (e.g., diabetes,. 4. respiratory illness) because disability is broadly defined as those with activity limitations,. 5. who use assistance, or who perceive themselves as disabled. People with MR may not. 6. fall within any of these criteria, thus there exists little information on physical activity as. 7. a leading health indicator in this specific population segment.. 8 9. This lack of data on and promotion for physical activity in people with MR is of significant concern for several reasons. First, the health care costs associated with. 10. inactivity among the general population are extreme, with estimates of $75 billion in the. 11. U.S. alone [World Heath Organization, 2003]. There are no data regarding the costs of. 12. inactivity in people with MR, but the lifetime direct medical and non medical (e.g.,. 13. physician visits, inpatient hospital stays) costs associated with this condition are. 14. estimated at over $12 million [Honeycutt et al., 2004]. It is reasonable to assume that this. 15. can be partially attributed to chronic disease and disability due to inactivity. Second,. 16. indirect costs such as premature death, lost wages, and work limitations are estimated at. 17. over $38 million and account for 76% of the total lifetime costs related to the MR. 18. diagnosis [Honeycutt et al., 2004], and it is reasonable to predict that a portion of these. 19. costs are due to inactivity. These are U.S. statistics but the high costs of dependent care. 20. for people with MR have also been observed in other industrialized countries [Polder et. 21. al., 2002; Stancliffe and Keane, 2000]. Third, the emotional and social toll of inactivity. 22. is difficult to assess; however, people with MR have consistently expressed the desire for. 23. control over their own lives [Stancliffe, 2001]. If health is compromised due to inactivity. 6.

(7) 1. then independence will be limited. Essentially, the ability of people with MR to exercise. 2. self-determination as integrated and productive members of society is influenced by their. 3. health, which is directly related to participation in regular physical activity.. 4. The aim of this paper is twofold: (1) to describe what is known about the. 5. engagement of adults with MR in physical activity behavior consistent with standard. 6. recommendations; and (2) to describe preliminary findings about the physical and social. 7. environments that may foster or hinder participation in health-promoting physical activity. 8. among people with MR. The review is limited to studies that used methods that allowed. 9. comparison to globally supported physical activity recommendations, such as 30 minutes,. 10. accumulated, moderate physical activity on all or most days of the week or 10,000 steps. 11. per day [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000; World Heath. 12. Organization, 2003]. Studies from countries that use a similar criterion to assess health. 13. related activity, specifically 12 bouts of moderate-vigorous physical activity lasting 20. 14. minutes, were also included. It is important to note that only studies that measured. 15. physical activity, not exercise or physical fitness, as a direct variable were addressed. To. 16. date, there exists only one published study on whether or not children and youth with MR. 17. are meeting activity guidelines so this age group was not included in the paper [Frey et. 18. al., unpublished data]. Readers are referred to Temple et al. [in press] for a more. 19. inclusive review of the literature on physical activity and adults with MR.. 20. UNDERSTANDING PHYSICAL ACTIVITY. 21. Physical activity, exercise, and fitness are three words that are frequently and. 22. mistakenly used interchangeably. While these terms are related, each represents a. 23. different concept that requires distinct consideration [Caspersen et al., 1985]. Physical. 7.

(8) 1. activity is defined as skeletal muscle movement that increases energy expenditure. 2. [Caspersen et al., 1985]. The term is further clarified according to: moderate activity. 3. which includes large muscle group activities equivalent to brisk walking, such as dancing. 4. and yard work; and vigorous activity which includes repetitive large muscle activity at an. 5. intensity equal to 70% of age-predicted maximum heart rate (e.g., jogging and lap. 6. swimming) [Caspersen et al., 1985; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,. 7. 2000]. Exercise is a subcategory of physical activity that is planned, structured, and. 8. undertaken for the purpose of improving or maintaining fitness [Caspersen et al., 1985].. 9. Fitness is a set of physical attributes related to the ability to perform physical activity. 10. [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000]. Fitness is further categorized. 11. according to health-related (i.e., cardiorespiratory endurance, muscular endurance,. 12. muscular strength, body composition, flexibility) or skill-related (i.e., agility, balance,. 13. coordination, power, speed) with the former being of greatest importance to public health. 14. [Caspersen et al., 1985].. 15. PHYSICAL ACTIVITY ASSESSMENT. 16. To better understand research on physical activity and adults with MR, it is. 17. important briefly review the definition of physical activity and currently accepted. 18. methods of assessing this behavior. For a more comprehensive review of physical. 19. activity assessment the reader is referred to Welk [2002]. There is an ongoing quest to. 20. determine the most accurate approach to measuring physical activity in free-living. 21. populations. A true “gold-standard” measure has thus far eluded researchers, but several. 22. methods demonstrate acceptable validity and reliability: doubly-labeled water, self-. 23. reports, activity monitors, heart rate monitors, pedometers, and direct observation [Dale. 8.

(9) 1. et al., 2002]. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with each method and. 2. those most commonly used to examine naturally occurring physical activity behavior are. 3. self-reports, activity monitors and pedometers. This review includes the published work. 4. that employed one or more of these assessment methods.. 5. Self-reports. There are four categories of self-report instruments: diary/log, recall. 6. questionnaire, quantitative history and global self-report [Matthews, 2002]. These. 7. instruments are inexpensive, provide specific information on activity, and are considered. 8. socially acceptable. The type of self-report dictates other aspects of usability; for. 9. example, maintaining an activity diary/log imposes greater participant burden and may. 10. influence activity behavior, compared to recall questionnaires which do not present these. 11. concerns [Matthews, 2002]. Data output varies with each instrument, but bouts of. 12. activity, perceived effort (i.e., intensity) associated with a task, time spent in certain. 13. activities, and the type of activities performed can be obtained. Energy expenditure is. 14. typically calculated using METs conversion tables [Ainsworth et al., 2000]. The validity. 15. and reliability of some physical activity surveys have been established [Jacobs et al.,. 16. 1993] while others remain questionable, and the validity of this approach is modest when. 17. compared to objective measures such as motion sensors and pedometers [Matthews,. 18. 2002].. 19. The accuracy of self-reports is highly dependent on memory, an understanding of. 20. physical activity, motivation to report truthfully, and the complexity of the physical. 21. activity addressed in the questionnaire [Dishman et al., 2001]. People tend to. 22. overestimate physical activity and underestimate sedentary activity [Klesges et al., 1990].. 23. These issues are particularly troublesome when attempting to apply self-report techniques. 9.

(10) 1. to examine physical activity in people with MR. Problems with acquiescence and. 2. comprehension in self-report research with this population have been well-documented. 3. [Bogdan and Taylor, 1994; Finlay and Lyons, 2001]. Proxy respondents (e.g.,. 4. caregivers) are typically used as self-report resources to assess physical activity in this. 5. group [Draheim et al., 2002a; Draheim et al., 2002b; Messent et al., 1998b; Messent et. 6. al., 1999; Robertson et al., 2000], but there are some concerns regarding the reliability of. 7. this approach because secondary sources may not accurately report primary source. 8. behavior [Finlay and Lyons, 2001]. This is particularly true for individuals with MR who. 9. reside in less controlled settings (e.g., supported living v. institution). Though self-. 10. reports are cost effective, allow large population sampling, and impose little participant. 11. burden [Matthews, 2002], use of this method to assess physical activity in people with. 12. MR is questionable.. 13. Motion sensors. Motion sensors measure limb or segment acceleration as an index. 14. of human movement and provide a direct, objective measure of physical activity in field-. 15. based settings [Welk, 2002]. These instruments have internal accelerometers designed to. 16. detect movement in single (uniaxial) or multiple (triaxial) planes, yet all are most. 17. sensitive to acceleration in the vertical plane. Data output is an activity count. 18. representing the magnitude of limb displacement or acceleration measured. Most new. 19. models have the capacity to collect data continuously according to programmed epochs. 20. for up to several weeks which allows calculation of activity frequency, intensity, and. 21. duration. Commercially available devices differ in factors such as size, memory. 22. capabilities, software and sensor sensitivity, but research indicates that all provide similar. 23. information [Welk, 2002].. 10.

(11) 1. Over the past 10 years there has been a large increase in the number of studies. 2. addressing the validity and reliability of motion sensors according to the model and. 3. activity type. There have also been efforts to develop equations that predict energy. 4. expenditure from activity counts [Hendelman et al., 2000; Tudor-Locke et al., 2002].. 5. Motion sensors provide strong, objective estimates of physical activity frequency,. 6. duration and intensity in free-living populations. These attributes also make motion. 7. sensors advantageous for assessing physical activity in people with MR because there is. 8. no recall demand, and several studies have effectively used motion sensors in this. 9. population [Frey, 2004; Temple et al., 2000; Temple and Walkley, 2003b]. However, the. 10. devices are costly and provide less accurate estimates of energy expenditure which can. 11. limit their utility [Welk et al., 2000].. 12. Pedometers. Pedometers measure steps and distance in response to vertical. 13. acceleration, but it is important to note that the devices are not as sophisticated as. 14. accelerometers [Montoye et al., 1996]. Since walking is the one of the most popular. 15. forms of physical activity, has many health benefits, and is highly promoted in public. 16. health campaigns (e.g., 10,000 steps per day recommendation), it is often used as a. 17. representative measure of physical activity [Bassett and Strath, 2002]. Research indicates. 18. that pedometers are a low cost and low participant burden approach to obtaining. 19. reasonably valid and reliable estimates of walking behavior. However, the devices are. 20. unable to detect general physical movement, do not measure activity frequency or. 21. intensity, and only high-end models can store data which limits their utility in assessing. 22. activity patterns. Despite these disadvantages, pedometers have been used effectively to. 11.

(12) 1. assess walking behavior in those with MR [Stanish, 2004; Stanish and Draheim, 2004, ,. 2. 2005, , in press-b].. 3. Self-reports, motion sensors and pedometry have all been employed to assess. 4. physical activity in adults with MR, but only pedometry has been examined for validity. 5. in this group. Stanish [2004] investigated the accuracy of pedometers (Yamax. 6. Digiwalkers) as a measure of walking activity in 20 adults with mild MR (12 females, 8. 7. males) aged 19 – 65 years. Step counts and distance walked around a measured track. 8. were compared with direct observations of steps using a hand-held counter as a criterion. 9. measure. Pedometers were highly accurate in measuring steps taken with correlation. 10. coefficients ranging from .95 to .99, regardless of walking speed (fast pace, normal pace). 11. and terrain (indoor gymnasium, outdoor gravel track). Since both pedometers and motion. 12. sensors are meant to detect normal human movement, the high validity estimates reported. 13. by Stanish [2004] are not surprising. It is logical that validity and reliability estimates for. 14. these devices based on other populations would also apply to those with MR unless there. 15. are significant gait abnormalities that may affect measurement accuracy.. 16. Of greater concern is the lack of valid and reliable self-report instruments.. 17. Temple and Walkley [2003b] reported a 0.78 intraclass correlation coefficient between 3. 18. day diary and accelerometry measures. Stanish and Draheim [2005] found that the. 19. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) was a more reliable. 20. measure of physical activity (r = 0.87-0.88) than walking behavior (r = 0.60-0.61). There. 21. was a moderate percent agreement of 68.9% between 5 bouts of 30 minute moderate to. 22. vigorous physical activity per week obtained from the NHANES III the 10,000 steps per. 23. day criterion obtained from pedometry. Although promising, these findings are. 12.

(13) 1. collectively based on 18 subjects and generalizability is limited. Considering the. 2. subjective nature of this method, issues related to recall and understanding, and. 3. questionable reliability of proxy respondents, additional research is needed to support. 4. self-report as an acceptable method for assessing physical activity in people with MR.. 5. As previously mentioned, there is no “gold standard” for assessing physical. 6. activity behavior; therefore, the use of multiple methods is recommended to enhance. 7. measurement accuracy [Treuth, 2002]. Multiple measures potentially allow a more. 8. comprehensive understanding of physical activity behavior since single methods are. 9. limited in scope. Combined use of objective (motion sensors or pedometry) and. 10. subjective (self-reports) instruments will likely provide the best assessment of both the. 11. quantity and quality of movement in people with MR.. 12. PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND WALKING BEHAVIOR IN ADULTS WITH MENTAL RETARDATION. 13. To date, only eight studies have specifically examined physical activity, not. 14. exercise or fitness, in adults with MR according to current published recommendations. 15. (30 minutes of moderate to vigorous activity all or most days of the week or 10,000 steps. 16. per day) [Draheim et al., 2002a; Draheim et al., 2002b; Draheim et al., 2003; Frey, 2004;. 17. Stanish and Draheim, 2004, , 2005; Temple et al., 2000; Temple and Walkley, 2003b].. 18. There is large variability in reports, but based on these limited findings, less than one-. 19. third of this population segment engage in sufficient physical activity to accrue health. 20. benefits [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2005], see Table 1. The following. 21. section includes a comprehensive review and critical analysis of the published research. 22. addressing the physical activity behavior of adults with MR in relation to the. 23. recommended guidelines.. 13.

(14) 1. Physical Activity Behavior. Temple et al. [2000] used direct observation and. 2. uniaxial accelerometers (Caltrac) to record the physical activity behavior of 6 (3 men and. 3. 3 women) individuals with MR over 7 consecutive days. All lived in the same group. 4. home, had mild to moderate limitations, ranged in age from 19 – 45 years (M = 37 ± 1.7),. 5. and could travel independently to and from work or day program. Caltrac accelerometers. 6. do not store minute by minute data for later access and therefore direct observation data. 7. were used to estimate moderate-intensity physical activity (≥ 3.3 METs) and in. 8. conjunction with Bouchard’s formulae to estimate energy expenditure [Bouchard et al.,. 9. 1983]. Direct observation data revealed that one participant achieved 30 minutes of. 10. moderate-intensity physical activity on 5 or more days per week, and another participant. 11. met the recommendation on each day he was not ill at home (3 out of 7 days). Of note. 12. was the variability of participation in moderate or higher intensity physical activity. 13. despite the consistent living environment; average minutes per day ranged from 1.3 ± 3.4. 14. to 119.4 ± 88.0. Although sex differences were not significant, the effect size was. 15. moderate (d = .7) suggesting that gender requires additional study as a physical activity. 16. determinant in this population. Moderate intensity physical activity was accrued mainly. 17. via walking for transport and gardening as part of supported employment.. 18. A follow-up study by Temple and Walkley [2003b] examined the concurrence. 19. between estimates of energy expenditure generated from 3 day diary recordings (proxy. 20. caregiver) [Bouchard et al., 1983] and uniaxial accelerometers. Participants were 37. 21. adults with mild to moderate MR, age range 19 – 60 years (M = 36 ± 1.5), living in. 22. supported group homes. Data were collected for 3 days, 2 weekdays and 1 weekend day.. 23. The intraclass correlation coefficient between diary and accelerometer measures was .78.. 14.

(15) 1. On average, participants accrued more than 1 hour per day of at least moderate intensity. 2. physical activity. As previously observed [Temple et al., 2000], there were considerable. 3. variability in these data with only 32% of participants meeting the recommended 30. 4. minutes of moderate intensity physical activity per day.. 5. Frey [2004] reported similar findings based on a comparison of physical activity. 6. levels between adults with and without MR using uniaxial accelerometers with the. 7. capacity of storing movement data continuously for 22 days (Manufacturing Technology,. 8. Inc., Fort Walton Beach, FL). Participants were 22 adults with mild MR (MR; 11 men,. 9. 11 women; age = 34.9 ± 9.0 years), 17 sedentary controls without MR (SC; 8 men, 9. 10. women; age = 35.8 ± 7.6 years), and 9 active controls without MR (AC; 5 men, 4. 11. women; age = 34.1 ± 5.8 years). The SC group was sex and age matched to the adults. 12. with MR and were classified as sedentary based on self-reports (i.e., did not engage in. 13. regular moderate to vigorous exercise of at least 30 minutes duration at least 3 days per. 14. week). The AC sample was selected on the basis of being regularly physically active (a. 15. minimum of 30 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise per day and 3 days per week).. 16. Average minutes per day of moderate to vigorous physical activity were MR, 19.7 ±. 17. 17.6; SC 31.6 ± 21.8; and AC, 55.9 ± 18.2. There were no significant differences in. 18. activity levels between MR and SC groups, but active controls were significantly more. 19. active than all other subjects. Primary avenues of activity for MR and SC groups were. 20. household chores, yard work, walking and, for the former, Special Olympics, while AC. 21. subjects engaged in a variety of sports/activities such as jogging and tennis. The. 22. proportion of each group achieving 30 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity per. 23. day was: MR, 28%; SC, 47%; and AC, 89%. The MR group did not regularly engage in. 15.

(16) 1. continuous moderate activity greater than 10 minutes. It was concluded that adults with. 2. MR are similar to over 50% of the general population that is classified as sedentary yet. 3. the proportion of individuals with MR accumulating 30 minutes of continuous moderate. 4. activity is less than those without this diagnosis.. 5. Using a larger sample with a broader age range, Stanish and Draheim [2005]. 6. found fewer adults with MR that met the minimum activity guidelines. Physical activity. 7. was assessed using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III). 8. and steps per day via pedometry (Yamax digiwalkers). Participants were 103 adults (65. 9. men and 38 women) with mild and moderate MR aged 19 – 65 years (M: males 35.9 ±. 10. 11.2, females 39.7 ± 9.5); 19 participants had Down syndrome (10 men and 9 women).. 11. Pedometers were worn for 7 consecutive days and survey interviews were conducted with. 12. both participants with MR and direct care providers. Survey data revealed that 64.1%. 13. participated in five or more bouts of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week;. 14. however, only 17.5% of participants accrued the recommended duration of 30 minutes. 15. per day. This is an important distinction to make because estimates of physical activity. 16. levels can vary widely depending on the survey instrument and criterion used [U.S.. 17. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996].. 18. Draheim et al. [2002a; 2002b; 2003] examined physical activity and other. 19. cardiovascular risk factors in a large sample of approximately 150 adults with mild to. 20. moderate MR ages 18-65 years. Physical activity was assessed via interviews with study. 21. participants and caregivers using the NHANES III. Subjects in this study reported a. 22. much higher prevalence of recommended physical activity (45%) compared to the. 23. aforementioned studies but data on duration were not reported. There were no gender. 16.

(17) 1. differences and prevalence of no leisure time or little to no leisure time was similar to the. 2. general population [Draheim et al., 2002b]. There was a strong association between. 3. physical activity and certain cardiovascular disease risk factors such as abdominal obesity. 4. [Draheim et al., 2002a; Draheim et al., 2003]. The authors noted that the seemingly. 5. inflated activity estimates may be attributed to overestimation by proxy or secondary. 6. sources [Finlay and Lyons, 2001; Lunsky and Benson, 1999].. 7. The consensus is that intermittent bouts of physical activity, as short as 8 to 10. 8. minutes, can be used to accumulate 30 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity. 9. and still provide beneficial health effects but the research does not support the use of. 10. shorter bouts such as 5 minutes [Le Masurier, 2004]. Frey [2004] conducted the only. 11. study with instrumentation that allowed minute by minute data analysis and thus the. 12. ability to assess continuous activity. Few subjects with MR engaged in continuous. 13. activity longer than 5 minutes. Based on these findings, individuals with MR do not. 14. accumulate sufficiently long bouts of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day to. 15. satisfy current guidelines.. 16. There is clearly a paucity of research on the participation of adults with MR in. 17. physical activity consistent with current recommendations, particularly from countries. 18. outside the U.S. Similar findings have been reported in a few studies from England using. 19. the criteria of at least 12 bouts of 20 minutes moderate (>5 and <7.5 kcal/min) to. 20. vigorous (≥7.5 kcal/min) activity occurring over 4 weeks [Emerson, 2005; Messent et al.,. 21. 1998b; Robertson et al., 2000]. This threshold had been identified as offering some. 22. protection against coronary heart disease [Department of Health, 1995] and the. 23. proportion of participants meeting this criterion ranged from 4% to 20%. Despite. 17.

(18) 1. evidence consistent with the aforementioned studies based on a 30 minute moderate. 2. activity criteria, several issues should be considered when interpreting these studies.. 3. First, in the mid 1990’s, Britain revised their activity recommendations to. 4. coincide with other health agencies [Prior, 1999]. All of the studies were published well. 5. after these revisions were implemented yet the outdated guidelines were used for data. 6. interpretation leading to potentially unreliable findings. For example, Messent et al.. 7. [1998a; 1998b] actually discussed both the 30 minute (current) and 20 minute (former). 8. moderate activity guidelines and it was not clear which was used as a criterion. In. 9. addition, the Emerson [2005] study was published well after the policy was revised. 10. [Prior, 1999] but a physical activity scale based on the old guidelines was used for data. 11. collection. The use of proxy respondents as data sources and a 4 week activity recall,. 12. also calls into question the validity of these findings for reasons previously discussed.. 13. Additional research that uses updated assessment tools and universal guidelines is needed. 14. to better understand physical activity in people with MR from different countries. 15. Walking behavior. A growing body of evidence suggests that individuals who. 16. accumulate 10,000 steps per day have less body fat and lower blood pressure than less. 17. active individuals [Moreau et al., 2001; Tudor-Locke et al., 2001] and fewer steps per day. 18. are associated with increased body mass index, waist circumference, and diastolic blood. 19. pressure [Chan et al., 2003]. Walking is a primary mode of activity in people without. 20. disabilities and also appears to be one of the most common physical activities carried out. 21. by persons with MR from various countries [Draheim et al., 2002b; Temple et al., 2000;. 22. Temple and Walkley, 2003b], yet there exists little research that has directly assessed this. 23. behavior.. 18.

(19) 1. Despite the prevalence of walking as a primary activity mode, only a handful of. 2. studies have actually assessed this health behavior in adults with MR. Stanish [2004]. 3. studied walking behavior in a small sample of 20 individuals with mild MR (12 females,. 4. 8 males aged 19 – 65 years). Average steps per day for males and females without Down. 5. syndrome were 11885 ± 5646 and 11809 ± 4652, respectively. When analyzed according. 6. to diagnosis, males and females with Down syndrome (n = 9) 5450 ± 2316 and 8816 ±. 7. 4094 acquired fewer steps than those without Down syndrome. Subjects walked less on. 8. weekends, with nine participants (45%) achieving 10,000 steps or more on weekdays and. 9. only four (20%) achieving this criterion on weekend days. This is contrary to previous. 10. research that found no differences in weekend v. weekday physical activity in this. 11. population [Frey, 2004]. In a larger sample of 103 adults, Stanish and Draheim [2005]. 12. found that subjects with MR walked an average fewer steps per day (7832) and only 21%. 13. met the 10,000 steps per day guideline.. 14. Although walking is a prevalent form of physical activity in adults with MR, the. 15. intensity is low or low-moderate and may not be sufficient to promote health [Draheim et. 16. al., 2002b; Temple et al., 2000; Temple and Walkley, 2003b]. Some evidence to support. 17. this premise was recently established by Stanish and Draheim [in press-a] who found no. 18. differences in body composition or blood pressure among adults with MR who were. 19. classified as ‘sedentary’ (<5,000 steps/day), ‘low active’ (5,000 – 7,499 steps/day),. 20. ‘somewhat active’ (7,500 – 9,999 steps/day), and ‘active’ (≥10,000 steps/day). As Le. 21. Masurier [2004] points out, if walking is going to be an effective physical activity. 22. intervention it should be consistent with the current recommendations, particularly with. 23. regard to intensity of effort as well as duration or step counts.. 19.

(20) 1. Despite a paucity of studies and methodological limitations, research indicates. 2. that the majority of adults with MR do not meet minimum guidelines concerning. 3. frequency, intensity and duration of physical activity necessary to achieve health benefits.. 4. This observation is consistent regardless of assessment methods, specific guidelines (e.g.,. 5. 30 minutes moderate activity, 20 minutes moderate activity, 10,000 steps) and country of. 6. origin. However, it appears that adults with MR are not necessarily more sedentary than. 7. those without the diagnosis.. 8. BARRIERS AND FACILITATING FACTORS FOR PHYSICAL ACTIVITY. 9. Understanding physical activity behavior in the general population has been a. 10. topic of significant inquiry but there have been few attempts to explain physical activity. 11. in adults with MR. Correlates of activity typically fall into five categories: demographic. 12. and biological factors; psychological, cognitive, and emotional factors; behavioral. 13. attributes and skills; social and cultural factors; and physical environment factors [Trost. 14. et al., 2002]. The following discussion will be organized according to these categories. 15. but due to limited information on this topic some may be combined to facilitate. 16. discussion.. 17. Demographic and biological factors and behavioral attributes and skills. These. 18. categories are combined because it is difficult to separate the biology of mental. 19. retardation and resulting behavior or skills. Age, education, gender, heredity,. 20. socioeconomic status, ethnicity, the presence of children, activity history, dietary habits,. 21. and processes of change impact activity in people without disabilities [Trost et al., 2002]. 22. but most of these have not been explored in people with MR. Age appears to be. 23. negatively associated with activity in adults with MR [Emerson, 2005; Robertson et al.,. 20.

(21) 1. 2000]]. Interestingly, the gender disparities in physical activity frequently observed in. 2. the general population are not apparent in those with MR [Draheim et al., 2002a; Frey,. 3. 2004; Robertson et al., 2000] and this may be because both men and women are largely. 4. sedentary.. 5. Other demographic or biological factors have not been expressly studied in this. 6. group but there exists some data on severity of MR and diagnosis. Emerson [2005] and. 7. Robinson et al. [2000] found that, after controlling for physical disabilities, those with. 8. fewer behavior and health problems were more active than peers with less desirable. 9. scores on these measures. Few studies have analyzed activity participation according to. 10. diagnosis, but Stanish [2004] reported that individuals with Down syndrome walk fewer. 11. steps per day than counterparts with MR not due to Down syndrome. Since there is. 12. sufficient evidence that some impairments associated with Down syndrome (e.g. joint. 13. hypermobility, obesity, low bone mass) negatively impact health factors such as physical. 14. fitness [Fernhall et al., 1996], specific diagnosis must be considered when studying. 15. physical activity in people with MR.. 16. Psychological, cognitive, and emotional factors. A large number of personal. 17. factors such as activity barriers, expected benefits, health and exercise knowledge,. 18. perceived health and fitness, stage of change, and self-efficacy, self-motivation, and self-. 19. schemata are all correlated with participation in regular activity by the general population. 20. [Trost et al., 2002]. Studying these determinants in people with MR presents serious. 21. challenges due to inherent cognitive delays that may interfere with the ability to. 22. understand certain constructs, engage in reflective thought, and/or engage in constructive. 23. self-expression. Traditional methods for exploring these variables are self-report. 21.

(22) 1. instruments which are of limited use with this population. Qualitative methods have been. 2. successfully used to examine other social constructs in this population [Bogdan and. 3. Taylor, 1994; Mactavish et al., 2000] and to date there have been two studies that. 4. employed these methods to assess psychosocial determinants of physical activity from. 5. the participant’s, not a proxy respondent’s, perspective.. 6. Frey et al. [2005] used interpretive ethnography to examine determinants of. 7. activity in 12 adults with MR purposively sampled from a previous study [Frey, 2004].. 8. Individuals were selected for in-depth interviews based on expressive and receptive. 9. language abilities. The authors were well acquainted with the subjects having known. 10. most of them for over 3 years, which allowed for a good level of rapport, trust, and. 11. natural communication during the interviews. In addition, the authors were better. 12. equipped to identify issues of comprehension and acquiescence that could alter findings.. 13. Four parents and two job supervisors were also interviewed separately as to provide a. 14. source for data triangulation. Subjects reported barriers to physical activity similar to the. 15. general population such as time and money and also perceived benefits similar to the. 16. general population such as looking and feeling good [Trost et al., 2002]. A perceived. 17. benefit of physical activity unique to this group was awards. Several participants were. 18. highly motivated by ribbons and medals received through Special Olympics and this. 19. often dictated activity preferences. This is a concern because reliance on this type of. 20. external reinforcement may not be conducive to activity maintenance.. 21. Messent et al. [1999] conducted structured in-depth interviews with 24. 22. individuals with MR and 12 caregivers. Questions focused on daily activities that. 23. occurred in the 7 days previous to data collection, activities they enjoyed, beliefs and. 22.

(23) 1. attitudes, and experiences during a 10 week exercise program. Participants had difficulty. 2. conveying rationales for certain responses related to activity likes or dislikes, but. 3. expressed clear frustration with the lack activity choices during weekends and after work.. 4. Adults with MR had little control over their environment, had few opportunities to be. 5. active, and were not empowered to engage in activity choice making.. 6. Rimmer [1996] suggests that adults with MR lack motivation to be physically. 7. active and Prasher and Janicki [2002] reinforce that the motivation of adults with MR is. 8. of concern for those who wish to promote physical activity for wellness. Adults with MR. 9. often expressed a preference for inactivity, particularly watching television, but it is. 10. unclear if this choice was based on a true preference or due to limited alternatives for. 11. other activities [Frey et al., 2005]. Considering that 60% of the global population does. 12. not meet the minimum physical activity guidelines [World Heath Organization, 2003], it. 13. is difficult to conclude if adults with MR are any less motivated to be active than those. 14. without MR.. 15. Social and cultural factors and physical environment. The categories will be. 16. discussed together since there is significant overlap between the social supports an. 17. individual with MR receives (e.g., parents, caregivers) and living environment (e.g.,. 18. family home, group home). Robertson et al. [2000] found that those residing in less. 19. restrictive settings were more active than counterparts who lived under greater. 20. supervision. Conversely, Rimmer et al. [1995] reported that individuals with MR. 21. residing in less structured settings exercised less than those in more supervised. 22. placements. Emerson [2005] also found that participation in segregated day centers was. 23.

(24) 1. negatively associated with activity. The discrepancies in physical activity according to. 2. living environment may be due to caregivers or staff, a factor that is difficult to control.. 3. Lack of staff motivation to promote physical activity [Temple and Walkley,. 4. 2003a], a lack of physical activity counseling [Frey et al., 2005], and high client to staff. 5. ratios (Messent et al., 1999) have all been reported as constraints to participation. This is. 6. supported by Lennox [2002] who asserts that, people with MR “are often living in. 7. environments where healthy choices, by them or their carers, are difficult (if not. 8. impossible). Too often staff numbers and/or resources may be inadequate to allow. 9. regular exercise” (p. 237). Care-providers and supervisors report that inadequate. 10. physical activity policies and guidelines for residential and day service providers. 11. contribute to these difficulties [Messent et al., 1999].. 12. A salient activity determinant unique to this group is negative messages regarding. 13. physical activity participation from support systems [Frey et al., 2005]. Individuals with. 14. MR articulated that caregivers, teachers, coaches, and medical personnel rationalized,. 15. enabled, and oftentimes encouraged sedentary behaviors. Independent participation in. 16. activity was largely discouraged by reinforcing fears and the need for constant. 17. supervision. Persistent messages were that participants should not over exert themselves. 18. or “overdo it”. These negative messages were well-intentioned efforts to protect. 19. seemingly vulnerable individuals but the outcome was that participants with MR. 20. developed perceptions of disempowerment, physical fragility, over reliance on supports,. 21. and incompetence with regard to being physically active. Despite lack of support for. 22. physical activity from certain support systems, people with MR are highly motivated to. 23. engage in activity as a social outlet, similar to the nondisabled [Frey et al., 2005].. 24.

(25) 1. Within the physical environment, transportation and the location of day program. 2. centers in relation to open space and community facilities, may hinder participation in. 3. physical activity [Messent et al., 1999; Neumayer and Bleasdale, 1996]. Participants. 4. with MR and job supervisors in the Frey et al. [2005] study concurred that transportation. 5. was a primary factor in the ability to access activity opportunities. Beyond these general. 6. descriptive and environmental determinants there have been few attempts to study social. 7. and environmental factors that influence physical activity from the perspective of the. 8. individual with MR.. 9. SUMMARY. 10. Table 1 summarizes the studies to date that have examined moderate to vigorous. 11. intensity physical activity consistent with the recommendation of accumulating 30. 12. minutes of moderate intensity physical activity on 5 or more days per week. The. 13. proportion of individuals with MR achieving this criterion ranged from 17.5% to 33%,. 14. but if continuous activity is considered these percentages will likely decrease since. 15. individuals with MR do not engage in long bouts of continues moderate activity [Frey,. 16. 2004]. These findings are somewhat supported by three British studies that reported. 17. physical activity rates of between 4% and 20% based on a more stringent activity. 18. criterion (20 minutes of continuous moderate activity). Major sources of physical. 19. activity for adults with MR are walking and cycling for transport, chores and work,. 20. dancing, and Special Olympics. Walking for transport is by far the most prevalent form. 21. of physical activity but studies suggest the intensity may not be sufficient to meet the. 22. minimum recommendations to achieve health benefits.. 25.

(26) 1. Caution is warranted when generalizing these findings to the broader population. 2. of adults with MR since most samples included relatively young volunteers with mild to. 3. moderate cognitive delays. Persons with severe or profound MR frequently experience. 4. co-occurring conditions such as medical complications and mobility limitations [O'Brien. 5. et al., 2002] which make physical activity more difficult. Including more persons with. 6. severe or profound MR will, in all probability, further reduce overall rates of physical. 7. activity among persons with MR [Emerson, 2005; Robertson et al., 2000]. It should also. 8. be noted that the research has been conducted primarily in the United States, Canada,. 9. Australia and Britain hence the results are geographically limited and may not be. 10. generalizable beyond those areas.. 11. A variety of environmental, physical, and psychosocial factors influence physical. 12. activity behavior in these individuals. Similar to the general population, physical activity. 13. is lower in older individuals with MR and common perceived barriers to regular activity. 14. participation include time, money, and weather. Individuals with MR also experience. 15. unique external barriers to physical activity dictated by support systems, such as. 16. overprotection by caregivers, agency structures (e.g., policies, staffing ratios, resources),. 17. and lack of opportunities. Until these factors are addressed it will be difficult to. 18. determine if perceptions toward activity held by individuals with MR are self-determined. 19. or overly influenced by support systems.. 20. RESEARCH AND HEALTH PROMOTION NEEDS. 21. The global goal is to increase participation in moderate physical activity that. 22. meets the minimum guidelines 30 minutes on all or most days of the week [World Heath. 23. Organization, 2003]. The U.S. Surgeon’s General report presents a more specific goal to. 26.

(27) 1. increase the number of people who meet the aforementioned recommendation from 15%. 2. to 30%. It may appear from the few studies published on physical activity and adults. 3. with MR that this goal has been achieved. Indeed the proportion of adults with MR. 4. walking or cycling for transport may be higher than the general population, but our. 5. knowledge regarding the participation of adults with MR in physical activity is too. 6. superficial to draw conclusions.. 7. This review clearly illustrates that few studies have been conducted in this area. 8. despite the extensive body of research documenting the relationship between physical. 9. activity and health. In addition, only a handful of studies have examined the. 10. determinants of physical activity participation in people with MR. The development of. 11. activity interventions or promotion programs is difficult because no clear. 12. barriers/facilitators have been identified through research. Inconsistency in activity. 13. assessment methods, sample populations, as well as large differences in disability. 14. policies and services across countries render it impossible to develop a consensus. 15. regarding physical activity and people with MR. Although it is generally accepted these. 16. individuals are one of the most sedentary segments of society [Messent et al., 1999], this. 17. assumption is inferred rather than factual. Since there has been only one study that. 18. actually employed a comparison group to assess the magnitude of difference in physical. 19. activity between those with and without MR [Frey, 2004], it is premature to assert that. 20. these individuals are less active than the general population.. 21. There is a pressing need to conduct studies using appropriately powered. 22. representative samples and acceptable assessment methods that also compare. 23. participation to that of the general community. In addition, future research must. 27.

(28) 1. incorporate elements of both behavior and disability theories to provide a framework. 2. from which to examine the many complicated factors that influence physical activity in. 3. this population. Essentially there is an urgent need for an increase in the quality and. 4. quantity of research on physical activity and people with MR.. 5. The importance of physical activity for people with disabilities, including those. 6. with MR, has been recently acknowledged by leading health promotion agencies [U.S.. 7. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000; U.S. Public Health Service, 2002].. 8. Unfortunately, without sound baseline data it is difficult to assess the level of health risk. 9. associated with inactivity or the efficacy and effectiveness of longitudinal interventions. 10. in this population segment. By determining the nature and scope of physical activities. 11. performed by individuals with MR we will increase our ability to develop high quality. 12. health-promotion interventions that appropriately address the unique needs of this group. 13. of individuals.. 28.

(29) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44. REFERENCES Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Whitt MC et al. 2000. Compendium of physical activities: An update of activity codes and MET intensities. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32:S498S516. Bassett DR, Strath SJ. 2002. Use of pedometers to assess physical activity. In: Welk GJ, editor. Physical activity assessments for health-related research. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. p 163-177. Bogdan R, Taylor SJ. 1994. The social meaning of mental retardation: Two life stories. New York City, NY: Teacher's College Press. Bouchard C, Tremblay A, Leblanc C et al. 1983. Method to assess energy expenditure in children and adults. Am J Clin Nutr 37:461-467. Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM. 1985. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: Definitions and distinction for health-related research. Public Health Rep 100:126-131. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2005. Physical Activity for Everyone: Recommendations. Atlanta, GA: Author. Chan CB, Spangler E, Valcour J et al. 2003. Cross-sectional Relationship of PedometerDetermined Ambulatory Activity to Indicators of Health. Obes Res 11:15631570. Dale D, Welk GJ, Matthews CE. 2002. Methods for assessing physical activity and challenges for research. In: Welk GJ, editor. Physical activity assessments for health-related research. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. p 19-34. Department of Health. 1995. The Health Survey for England 1993. London: HMSO. Dishman RK, Washburn RA, Shoeller DA. 2001. Measurement of physical activity. Quest 53:295-309. Draheim CC, McCubbin JA, Williams DP. 2002a. Differences in cardiovascular disease risk between non-diabetic adults with Down syndrome and mental retardation. Am J Ment Retard 107:201-211. Draheim CC, Williams DP, McCubbin JA. 2002b. Prevalence of physical inactivity and recommended physical activity in community-based adults with mental retardation. Ment Retard 40:436-444. Draheim CC, Williams DP, McCubbin JA. 2003. Cardiovascular disease risk factor differences between special olympians and non-special olympians. Adapt Phys Act Quart 20:118-133. Emerson E. 2005. Underweight, obesity and exercise among adults with intellectual disabilities in supported accommodation in Northern England. J Intellect Disabil Res 49:134-143. Fernhall B, Pitetti KH. 2001. Limitations to physical work capacity in individuals with mental retardation. Clin Exerc Physiol 3:176-185. Fernhall B, Pitetti KH, Rimmer JH et al. 1996. Cardiorespiratory capacity of individuals with mental retardation including Down syndrome. Med Sci Sports Exerc 28:366371. Finlay WML, Lyons E. 2001. Methodological issues in interviewing and using self-report questionnaires with people with mental retardation. Psychol Assess 13:319-335.. 29.

(30) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44. Frey G. 2004. Comparison of physical activity levels between adults with and without mental retardation. J Phys Act Health 1:235-245. Frey GC, Buchanan AM, Rosser Sandt DD. 2005. "I'd rather watch TV": An examination of physical activity in adults with mental retardation." Ment Retard 43:241–254. Graham A, Reid G. 2000. Physical fitness of adults with an intellectual disability: A 13year follow-up study. Res Quart Exerc Sport 71:152-161. Hendelman D, Miller K, Baggett C et al. 2000. Validity of accelerometry for the assessment of moderate intensity physical activity in the field. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32:S442-S449. Honeycutt A, Dunla L, Chen H et al. 2004. Economic costs associated with mental retardation, cerebral palsy, hearing loss, and vision impairment-United States, 2003. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 53:57-59. Jacobs DR, Ainsworth BE, Hartman TJ et al. 1993. A simultaneous evaluation of 10 commonly used physical activity questionnaires. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25:81-91. Janicki MP, Davidson PW, Henderson CM et al. 2002. Health characteristics and health services utilization in older adults with intellectual disability living in community residences. J Intellect Disabil Res 46:287-298. Klesges RC, Eck LH, Mellon MW et al. 1990. The accuracy of self-reports of physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 22:690-697. Le Masurier GG. 2004. Walk which way? ACSM's Health & Fitness Journal 8:7-10. Lennox N. 2002. Health promotion and disease prevention. In: Prasher VP, Janicki MP, editors. Physical health of adults with intellectual disabilities. Oxford, UK: Blackwell publishing. Lunsky Y, Benson BA. 1999. Social circles of adults with mental retardation as viewed by their caregivers. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disability 11:115-129. Mactavish JB, Mahon MJ, Lutfiyya ZM. 2000. "I can speak for myself": Involving individuals with intellectual disabilities as research participants. Ment Retard 38:216-227. Matthews CE. 2002. Use of self-report instruments to assess physical activity. In: Welk GJ, editor. Physical activity assessment for health-related research. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. p 107-123. Messent PR, Cooke C, B, Long J. 1998a. Daily physical activity in adults with mild and moderate learning disabilities: Is there enough? Disabil Rehabil 20:424-427. Messent PR, Cooke C, B, Long J. 1998b. Physical activity, exercise and health of adults with mild and moderate learning disabilities. Br J Learn Disabil 26:17-22. Messent PR, Cooke CB, Long J. 1999. Primary and secondary barriers to physically active healthy lifestyles for adults with learning disabilities. Disabil Rehabil 21:409-419. Montoye HJ, Kemper HCG, Saris WHM et al. 1996. Measuring physical activity and energy expenditure. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Moreau K, L, Degarmo R, Langley J et al. 2001. Increasing daily walking lowers blood pressure in postmenopausal women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33:1825-1831. Neumayer R, Bleasdale M. 1996. Personal lifestyle preferences of people with an intellectual disability. J Intellect Dev Disabil 21:91-114.. 30.

(31) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46. O'Brien G, Barnard L, Pearson J et al. 2002. Physical health and clinical phenotypes. In: Prasher VP, Janicki MP, editors. Physical Health of Adults with Intellectual Disabilities. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. p 35-62. Polder J, Meerding W, Bonneaux L et al. 2002. Healthcare costs of intellectual disability in the Netherlands: A cost-of-illness perspective. J Intellect Disabil Res 46:168178. Prasher VP, Janicki MP. 2002. Future prospects: A challenge to promote wellness. In: Prasher VP, Janicki MP, editors. Physical health of adults with intellectual disabilities. Oxford, UK: Blackwell publishing. Prior G. 1999. Health survey for England 1998: Physical activity. London: The Stationary Office. Rimmer JH. 1996. Physical fitness in people with mental retardation. The Arc. Rimmer JH, Braddock D. 2002. Health promotion for people with physical, cognitive, and sensory disabilities: An emerging national priority. Am J Health Promot 16:220-224. Rimmer JH, Braddock D, Fujiura G. 1993. Prevalence of obesity in adults with mental retardation: Implications for health promotion and disease prevention. Ment Retard 31:105-110. Rimmer JH, Braddock D, Marks B. 1995. Health characteristics and behaviors of adults with mental retardation residing in three living arrangements. Res Dev Disabil 16:489-499. Robertson J, Emerson E, Gregory N et al. 2000. Lifestyle related risk factors for poor health in residential settings for people with intellectual disabilities. Res Dev Disabil 21:469-486. Stancliffe RJ. 2001. Living with support in the community: Predictors of choice and selfdetermination. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 7:91-98. Stancliffe RJ, Keane S. 2000. Outcomes and costs of community living: A matched comparison of group homes and semi-independent living. J Intellect Dev Disabil 25:281-305. Stanish HI. 2004. Accuracy of pedometers and walking activity in adults with mental retardation. Adapt Phys Act Quart 21:167-179. Stanish HI, Draheim CC. 2004. Comparison of walking habits of men and women with intellectual disabilities. Res Quart Exerc Sport 75(Supplement):A112-113. Stanish HI, Draheim CC. 2005. Assessment of walking activity using a pedometer and survey in adults with mental retardation. Adapt Phys Act Quart 22:136-145. Stanish HI, Draheim CC. in press-a. Walking activity, body composition, and blood pressure in adults with intellectual disabilities. . Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. Stanish HI, Draheim CC. in press-b. Walking habits of adults with mental retardation. Ment Retard. Sutherland G, Couch MA, Iacono T. 2002. Health issues for adults with developmental disability. Res Dev Disabil 23:422-445. Temple VA, Anderson C, Walkley JW. 2000. Physical activity levels of individuals living in a group home. J Intellect Dev Disabil 25:327-341. Temple VA, Frey GC, Stanish HI. in press. Physical activity of adults with mental retardation. Review and research needs. Am J Health Promot.. 31.

(32) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35. Temple VA, Walkley JW. 2003a. Living arrangements and training influences on participation in physical activity among intellectually disabled adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35:S66. Temple VA, Walkley JW. 2003b. Physical activity of adults with intellectual disability. J Intellect Dev Disabil 28:323–334. Treuth MS. 2002. Applying multiple methods to improve the accuracy of activity assessments. In: Welk GJ, editor. Physical assessments for health-related research. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. p 213-225. Trost SG, Owen N, Bauman AE et al. 2002. Correlates of adults' participation in physical activity. Review and update. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34:1996-2001. Tudor-Locke C, Ainsworth BE, Whitt MC et al. 2001. The relationship between pedometer-determined ambulatory activity and body composition variables. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 25:1571-1578. Tudor-Locke C, Williams JE, Reis JP et al. 2002. Utility of pedometers for assessing physical activity. Convergent validity. Sports Med 32:795-808. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1996. Physical activity and health: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, Georgia: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, CDC, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2000. Healthy People 2010: Understanding and improving health. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Public Health Service. 2002. Closing the gap: A national blueprint for improving the health of individuals with mental retardation. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services. Welk GJ, editor. 2002. Physical activity assessments for health-related research. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Welk GJ, Blair SN, Wood K et al. 2000. A comparative evaluation of three accelerometry-based physical activity monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32:S489S497. World Heath Organization. 2003. WHO global strategy on diet, physical activity and health. Geneva: Author.. 36. 32.

(33) 1. Table 1. 2. Proportion of study participants accruing 30 minutes of moderate or higher intensity. 3. physical activity. 4. Study. Country. N. % male. METs. 30min/day. Temple et al. (2000). Australia. 6. 50. ≥3.3. 33%. Temple & Walkley (2003). Australia. 37. 51. ≥3.3. 32%. Frey (2004). USA. 22. 50. ≥3.0. 28%. Stanish & Draheim (2005). Canada. 103. 63. > 3.5. 17.5%. Note. METs, metabolic equivalents. 33.

(34)

No results found