BACKGROUND: Accurately measuring physical activity (PA) with activity monitors requires sufficient monitor wear time which can be difficult to assess. Monitor sensitivity to movement and population characteristics (eg, children vs. adults) may dictate the duration of monitor inactivity indicative of nonwear. A standardized method for determining appropriate decision rules to identify wear time is needed. METHODS: Several decision rules based on minimum durations of monitor inactivity (ie, 60, 90, 120, 150 minutes) to identify nonwear were applied to Stepwatch Activity Monitor data from 1064 adult bariatric surgical candidates. The frequency, pattern, and duration of resulting nonwear and wear periods were examined. Generalized Estimating Equations tested the effect of these decision rules on PA measures. RESULTS: A 60-minute duration resulted in unreasonably large percentages of subjects with unlikely wear patterns [eg, ≥3 nonwear periods in a day (29.9%); ≥2 wear periods of less than an hour in a day (28.7%)]; 120 minutes appeared most reasonable. Wear time decision rules impacted PA measures. CONCLUSIONS: The methods described in this paper can be used to determine appropriate instrument and population specific wear time decision rules. Recognizing monitor wear time is estimated, PA measures least affected by wear time are preferable.
BACKGROUND: Accurately measuring physical activity (PA) with activity monitors requires sufficient monitor wear time which can be difficult to assess. Monitor sensitivity to movement and population characteristics (eg, children vs. adults) may dictate the duration of monitor inactivity indicative of nonwear. A standardized method for determining appropriate decision rules to identify wear time is needed. METHODS: Several decision rules based on minimum durations of monitor inactivity (ie, 60, 90, 120, 150 minutes) to identify nonwear were applied to Stepwatch Activity Monitor data from 1064 adult bariatric surgical candidates. The frequency, pattern, and duration of resulting nonwear and wear periods were examined. Generalized Estimating Equations tested the effect of these decision rules on PA measures. RESULTS: A 60-minute duration resulted in unreasonably large percentages of subjects with unlikely wear patterns [eg, ≥3 nonwear periods in a day (29.9%); ≥2 wear periods of less than an hour in a day (28.7%)]; 120 minutes appeared most reasonable. Wear time decision rules impacted PA measures. CONCLUSIONS: The methods described in this paper can be used to determine appropriate instrument and population specific wear time decision rules. Recognizing monitor wear time is estimated, PA measures least affected by wear time are preferable.
Authors: N Orsini; R Bellocco; M Bottai; M Hagströmer; M Sjöström; M Pagano; A Wolk Journal: Scand J Med Sci Sports Date: 2007-03-12 Impact factor: 4.221
Authors: Genevieve N Healy; David W Dunstan; Jo Salmon; Ester Cerin; Jonathan E Shaw; Paul Z Zimmet; Neville Owen Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-05-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: James A Levine; Shelly K McCrady; Lorraine M Lanningham-Foster; Paul H Kane; Randal C Foster; Chinmay U Manohar Journal: Diabetes Date: 2007-11-14 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Richard P Troiano; David Berrigan; Kevin W Dodd; Louise C Mâsse; Timothy Tilert; Margaret McDowell Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Anne McTiernan; Bess Sorensen; Melinda L Irwin; Angela Morgan; Yutaka Yasui; Rebecca E Rudolph; Christina Surawicz; Johanna W Lampe; Paul D Lampe; Kamran Ayub; John D Potter Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Ronald K Evans; Dale S Bond; Luke G Wolfe; Jill G Meador; Jeffrey E Herrick; John M Kellum; James W Maher Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2007 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: David R Paul; Matthew Kramer; Kim S Stote; Karen E Spears; Alanna J Moshfegh; David J Baer; William V Rumpler Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2008-06-09 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: D K White; C Tudor-Locke; Y Zhang; J Niu; D T Felson; K D Gross; M C Nevitt; C E Lewis; J Torner; T Neogi Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Wendy C King; Jesse Y Hsu; Steven H Belle; Anita P Courcoulas; George M Eid; David R Flum; James E Mitchell; John R Pender; Mark D Smith; Kristine J Steffen; Bruce M Wolfe Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2011-08-16 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Wendy C King; Jia-Yuh Chen; Anita P Courcoulas; James E Mitchell; Bruce M Wolfe; Emma J Patterson; William B Inabnet; Gregory F Dakin; David R Flum; Brian Cook; Steven H Belle Journal: Prev Med Date: 2015-12-24 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Daniel K White; Catrine Tudor-Locke; Yuqing Zhang; Roger Fielding; Michael LaValley; David T Felson; K Douglas Gross; Michael C Nevitt; Cora E Lewis; James Torner; Tuhina Neogi Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Daniel K White; Julie J Keysor; Tuhina Neogi; David T Felson; Michael LaValley; K Doug Gross; Jingbo Niu; Michael Nevitt; Cora E Lewis; Jim Torner; Lisa Fredman Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: S A M Fenton; T Neogi; D Dunlop; M Nevitt; M Doherty; J L Duda; R Klocke; A Abhishek; A Rushton; W Zhang; C E Lewis; J Torner; G Kitas; D K White Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Daniel K White; Catrine Tudor-Locke; David T Felson; K Doug Gross; Jingbo Niu; Michael Nevitt; Cora E Lewis; James Torner; Tuhina Neogi Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2012-12-07 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Wendy C King; Melissa A Kalarchian; Kristine J Steffen; Bruce M Wolfe; Katherine A Elder; James E Mitchell Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2013-01-03 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Daniel K White; Catrine Tudor-Locke; David T Felson; K Douglas Gross; Jingbo Niu; Michael Nevitt; Cora E Lewis; James Torner; Tuhina Neogi Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2013-01