Virginia J Howard1, J David Rhodes, Aleena Mosher, Brent Hutto, Margaret S Stewart, Natalie Colabianchi, John E Vena, Steven N Blair, Steven P Hooker. 1. 1Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; 2Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; 3Prevention Research Center, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC; 4Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; 5Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC; 6Departments of Exercise Science and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC; and 7Exercise and Wellness Program, School of Nutrition and Health Promotion, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to report methodological details and feasibility of conducting an accelerometer ancillary study in a large US cohort being followed for stroke and cognitive decline. METHODS: Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke is a national population-based study of 30,239 blacks and whites, age ≥45 yr, enrolled January 2003 to October 2007. Baseline evaluations were conducted through computer-assisted telephone interview and an in-home visit. Participants are followed by computer-assisted telephone interview every 6 months. Starting with May 2009 follow-up, contingent on accelerometer availability, participants were invited to wear an accelerometer for 7 d. Device inventory was 1150. Accelerometer, instructions, log sheet, and stamped addressed return envelope were mailed to consenting participants. Postcard acknowledgement and reminders and two calls or less were made to encourage compliance. RESULTS: Between May 2009 and January 2013, 20,076 were invited to participate; 12,146 (60.5%) consented. Participation rates by race-sex groups were similar: black women, 58.6%; black men, 59.6%; white women, 62.3%; and white men, 60.5%. The mean age of the 12,146 participants to whom devices were shipped was 63.5 ± 8.7 yr. Return rate was 92%. Of 11,174 returned, 1187 were not worn and 14 had device malfunction, and of 9973 with data, 8096 (81.2%) provided usable data, defined as ≥4 d of 10+ h of wear time, ranging from 74.4% among black women to 85.2% among white men. CONCLUSIONS: Using mail and telephone methods, it is feasible to obtain objective measures of physical activity from a sizeable proportion of a national cohort of adults, with similar participation rates among blacks and whites. Linked with the clinical health information collected through follow-up, these data will allow future analyses on the association between objectively measured sedentary time, physical activity, and health outcomes.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to report methodological details and feasibility of conducting an accelerometer ancillary study in a large US cohort being followed for stroke and cognitive decline. METHODS: Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke is a national population-based study of 30,239 blacks and whites, age ≥45 yr, enrolled January 2003 to October 2007. Baseline evaluations were conducted through computer-assisted telephone interview and an in-home visit. Participants are followed by computer-assisted telephone interview every 6 months. Starting with May 2009 follow-up, contingent on accelerometer availability, participants were invited to wear an accelerometer for 7 d. Device inventory was 1150. Accelerometer, instructions, log sheet, and stamped addressed return envelope were mailed to consenting participants. Postcard acknowledgement and reminders and two calls or less were made to encourage compliance. RESULTS: Between May 2009 and January 2013, 20,076 were invited to participate; 12,146 (60.5%) consented. Participation rates by race-sex groups were similar: black women, 58.6%; black men, 59.6%; white women, 62.3%; and white men, 60.5%. The mean age of the 12,146 participants to whom devices were shipped was 63.5 ± 8.7 yr. Return rate was 92%. Of 11,174 returned, 1187 were not worn and 14 had device malfunction, and of 9973 with data, 8096 (81.2%) provided usable data, defined as ≥4 d of 10+ h of wear time, ranging from 74.4% among black women to 85.2% among white men. CONCLUSIONS: Using mail and telephone methods, it is feasible to obtain objective measures of physical activity from a sizeable proportion of a national cohort of adults, with similar participation rates among blacks and whites. Linked with the clinical health information collected through follow-up, these data will allow future analyses on the association between objectively measured sedentary time, physical activity, and health outcomes.
Authors: G C W Wendel-Vos; A J Schuit; E J M Feskens; H C Boshuizen; W M M Verschuren; W H M Saris; D Kromhout Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2004-05-27 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Virginia J Howard; Mary Cushman; Leavonne Pulley; Camilo R Gomez; Rodney C Go; Ronald J Prineas; Andra Graham; Claudia S Moy; George Howard Journal: Neuroepidemiology Date: 2005-06-29 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Wenfei Zhu; Virginia J Howard; Virginia G Wadley; Brent Hutto; Steven N Blair; John E Vena; Natalie Colabianchi; David Rhodes; Steven P Hooker Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Steven P Hooker; Brent Hutto; Wenfei Zhu; Steven N Blair; Natalie Colabianchi; John E Vena; David Rhodes; Virginia J Howard Journal: J Sci Med Sport Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 4.319
Authors: Wenfei Zhu; Virginia G Wadley; Virginia J Howard; Brent Hutto; Steven N Blair; Steven P Hooker Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Keith M Diaz; Virginia J Howard; Brent Hutto; Natalie Colabianchi; John E Vena; Steven N Blair; Steven P Hooker Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Erica Twardzik; Philippa J Clarke; Lynda L Lisabeth; Susan H Brown; Steven P Hooker; Suzanne E Judd; Natalie Colabianchi Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 6.604
Authors: E J Shiroma; M A Schepps; J Harezlak; K Y Chen; C E Matthews; A Koster; P Caserotti; N W Glynn; T B Harris Journal: Physiol Meas Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 2.833
Authors: Susan C Gilchrist; Virginia J Howard; Tomi Akinyemiju; Suzanne E Judd; Mary Cushman; Steven P Hooker; Keith M Diaz Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Keith M Diaz; Virginia J Howard; Brent Hutto; Natalie Colabianchi; John E Vena; Monika M Safford; Steven N Blair; Steven P Hooker Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Matthew S Cato; Katarzyna Wyka; Emily B Ferris; Kelly R Evenson; Fang Wen; Joan M Dorn; Lorna E Thorpe; Terry T-K Huang Journal: J Sci Med Sport Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 4.597