English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Authors’ contribution Wkład autorów: A. Study design/planning zaplanowanie badań B. Data collection/entry zebranie danych C. Data analysis/statistics dane – analiza i statystyki D. Data interpretation interpretacja danych E. Preparation of manuscript przygotowanie artykułu F. Literature analysis/search wyszukiwanie i analiza literatury G. Funds collection zebranie funduszy Summary Background. Although physiotherapy students are expected to promote and prescribe exercise, their own physical activity (PA) levels have not been fully researched using wearable devices to provide objective measurements of PA. This study aimed (1) to determine their PA level; and (2) to verify the use of wearables for physiotherapy students’ own practical benefits. Material and methods. Students (n=257) wore a pedometer (Yamax Digi-Walker SW-700) and wrist-based activity tracker (Garmin Vívofit 1) for seven consecutive days. Prior to monitoring, they completed the long form of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ-LF). A further evaluation was completed, relating to benefits and shortcomings of PA monitoring in their own practice. Results. A significant difference emerged between PA levels recorded with activity trackers on weekdays and weekend days, but only when gender and years of study were not taken into consideration. Specifically, 61.09% of participants were active or highly active on weekdays and none were sedentary. On the weekend, however, 47.47% were active or highly active and 11.67% were sedentary. Most (~79%) subjects reported clear benefits in PA monitoring. Conclusions. The student cohort were clearly active during the week, but almost half were insufficiently active in the weekend and thus, greater focus on the promotion of PA in physiotherapists-in-training might be necessary. The self-monitoring of PA under ambulatory conditions (using two wearable devices), combined with self-evaluation of PA, were study strengths.

PHYSICAL ACTIVITY OF PHYSIOTHERAPY STUDENTS AND THE ROLE OF DEVICE-BASED MONITORING IN THEIR FUTURE CLINICAL PRACTICE: A COHORT STUDY