Masamitsu Kamada1, Eric J Shiroma2, Tamara B Harris3, I-Min Lee4. 1. Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 900 Commonwealth Ave East, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Health Promotion and Exercise, National Institute of Health and Nutrition, 1-23-1 Toyama, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 162-8636 Japan. Electronic address: kamada@gakushikai.jp. 2. Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 900 Commonwealth Ave East, Boston, MA 02215, USA; National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Drive, MSC 2292, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. 3. National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Drive, MSC 2292, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. 4. Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 900 Commonwealth Ave East, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: It is unclear how physical activity estimates differ when assessed using hip- vs wrist-worn accelerometers. The objective of this study was to compare physical activity assessed by hip- and wrist-worn accelerometers in free-living older women. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study collecting data in free-living environment. METHODS: Participants were from the Women's Health Study, in which an ancillary study is objectively measuring physical activity using accelerometers (ActiGraph GT3X+). We analyzed data from 94 women (mean (SD) age=71.9 (6.0) years) who wore a hip-worn and wrist-worn accelerometers simultaneously for 7 days. RESULTS: Using triaxial data (vector magnitude, VM), total activity volume (counts per day) between the two locations was moderately correlated (Spearman's r=0.73). Hip and wrist monitors wear locations identically classified 71% individuals who were at the highest 40% or lowest 40% of their respective distributions. Similar patterns and slightly stronger agreements were observed when examining steps instead of VM counts. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerometer-assessed physical activity using hip- vs wrist-worn devices was moderately correlated in older, free-living women. However, further research needs to be conducted to examine comparisons of specific activities or physical activity intensity levels.
OBJECTIVES: It is unclear how physical activity estimates differ when assessed using hip- vs wrist-worn accelerometers. The objective of this study was to compare physical activity assessed by hip- and wrist-worn accelerometers in free-living older women. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study collecting data in free-living environment. METHODS:Participants were from the Women's Health Study, in which an ancillary study is objectively measuring physical activity using accelerometers (ActiGraph GT3X+). We analyzed data from 94 women (mean (SD) age=71.9 (6.0) years) who wore a hip-worn and wrist-worn accelerometers simultaneously for 7 days. RESULTS: Using triaxial data (vector magnitude, VM), total activity volume (counts per day) between the two locations was moderately correlated (Spearman's r=0.73). Hip and wrist monitors wear locations identically classified 71% individuals who were at the highest 40% or lowest 40% of their respective distributions. Similar patterns and slightly stronger agreements were observed when examining steps instead of VM counts. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerometer-assessed physical activity using hip- vs wrist-worn devices was moderately correlated in older, free-living women. However, further research needs to be conducted to examine comparisons of specific activities or physical activity intensity levels.
Authors: Pedro C Hallal; Lars Bo Andersen; Fiona C Bull; Regina Guthold; William Haskell; Ulf Ekelund Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mary E Rosenberger; William L Haskell; Fahd Albinali; Selene Mota; Jason Nawyn; Stephen Intille Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Andrea Mannini; Stephen S Intille; Mary Rosenberger; Angelo M Sabatini; William Haskell Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: I-Min Lee; Eric J Shiroma; Felipe Lobelo; Pekka Puska; Steven N Blair; Peter T Katzmarzyk Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Leah M Schumacher; J Graham Thomas; Sivamainthan Vithiananthan; Jennifer Webster; Daniel B Jones; Dale S Bond Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2019-12-24 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Lisa Tussing-Humphreys; Melissa Lamar; James A Blumenthal; Michael Babyak; Giamila Fantuzzi; Lara Blumstein; Linda Schiffer; Marian L Fitzgibbon Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Sarah S Farabi; Gordon I Smith; George G Schweitzer; Richard I Stein; Samuel Klein Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 5.551
Authors: Matthew T Stewart; Taylor Nezich; Joyce M Lee; Rebecca E Hasson; Natalie Colabianchi Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Ingrid E Nygaard; Ali Wolpern; Tyler Bardsley; Marlene J Egger; Janet M Shaw Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-08-14 Impact factor: 8.661