Literature DB >> 23134811

Comparison of 3 accelerometer data reduction approaches, step counts, and 2 self-report measures for estimating physical activity in free-living adults.

M Renee Umstattd Meyer1, Stephanie L Baller, Shawn M Mitchell, Stewart G Trost.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Accelerometers have become one of the most common methods of measuring physical activity (PA). Thus, validity of accelerometer data reduction approaches remains an important research area. Yet, few studies directly compare data reduction approaches and other PA measures in free-living samples.
OBJECTIVE: To compare PA estimates provided by 3 accelerometer data reduction approaches, steps, and 2 self-reported estimates: Crouter's 2-regression model, Crouter's refined 2-regression model, the weighted cut-point method adopted in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES; 2003-2004 and 2005-2006 cycles), steps, IPAQ, and 7-day PA recall.
METHODS: A worksite sample (N = 87) completed online-surveys and wore ActiGraph GT1M accelerometers and pedometers (SW-200) during waking hours for 7 consecutive days. Daily time spent in sedentary, light, moderate, and vigorous intensity activity and percentage of participants meeting PA recommendations were calculated and compared.
RESULTS: Crouter's 2-regression (161.8 ± 52.3 minutes/day) and refined 2-regression (137.6 ± 40.3 minutes/day) models provided significantly higher estimates of moderate and vigorous PA and proportions of those meeting PA recommendations (91% and 92%, respectively) as compared with the NHANES weighted cut-point method (39.5 ± 20.2 minutes/day, 18%). Differences between other measures were also significant.
CONCLUSIONS: When comparing 3 accelerometer cut-point methods, steps, and self-report measures, estimates of PA participation vary substantially.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23134811     DOI: 10.1123/jpah.10.7.1068

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Phys Act Health        ISSN: 1543-3080


  7 in total

1.  Achievement of physical activity recommendation and activity levels in students of human medicine compared with the general Austrian population aged between 20 and 29 years.

Authors:  Christian Lackinger; Thomas Ernst Dorner
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2015-03-19

Review 2.  A Review of Emerging Analytical Techniques for Objective Physical Activity Measurement in Humans.

Authors:  Cain C T Clark; Claire M Barnes; Gareth Stratton; Melitta A McNarry; Kelly A Mackintosh; Huw D Summers
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 11.136

3.  Measurement of sedentary behaviour in population health surveys: a review and recommendations.

Authors:  Stephanie A Prince; Allana G LeBlanc; Rachel C Colley; Travis J Saunders
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2017-12-11       Impact factor: 2.984

4.  Assessment of upper limb use in children with typical development and neurodevelopmental disorders by inertial sensors: a systematic review.

Authors:  Irene Braito; Martina Maselli; Giuseppina Sgandurra; Emanuela Inguaggiato; Elena Beani; Francesca Cecchi; Giovanni Cioni; Roslyn Boyd
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2018-11-06       Impact factor: 4.262

5.  Longitudinal Associations of Physical Activity Patterns and the Environment: An 18-Year Follow-Up to the MESA Study.

Authors:  Maíra Tristão Parra; Augusto César Ferreira De Moraes; Marcus Vinicius Nascimento-Ferreira; Paul J Mills; Matthew Allison
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 4.614

6.  Physical activity in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: prevalence of inactivity and perceived barriers.

Authors:  Joanna Sweeting; Jodie Ingles; Anna Timperio; Jillian Patterson; Kylie Ball; Christopher Semsarian
Journal:  Open Heart       Date:  2016-07-20

7.  Opposing associations between sedentary time and decision-making competence in young adults revealed by functional connectivity in the dorsal attention network.

Authors:  Dominika M Pindus; Christopher E Zwilling; Jennifer S Jarrett; Tanveer Talukdar; Hillary Schwarb; Evan Anderson; Neal J Cohen; Aron K Barbey; Arthur F Kramer; Charles H Hillman
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-08-19       Impact factor: 4.379

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.