Joseph J Scott1, Alex V Rowlands2, Dylan P Cliff3, Philip J Morgan1, Ronald C Plotnikoff1, David R Lubans4. 1. Priority Research Centre Physical Activity and Nutrition, University of Newcastle, Australia. 2. Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, UK; NIHR Leicester-Loughborough Diet, Lifestyle and Physical Activity Biomedical Research Unit, UK; Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity (ARENA), Sansom Institute for Health Research, Division of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Australia. 3. Interdisciplinary Educational Research Institute, School of Education, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong, Australia. 4. Priority Research Centre Physical Activity and Nutrition, University of Newcastle, Australia. Electronic address: David.lubans@newcastle.edu.au.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the comparability and feasibility of wrist- and hip-worn accelerometers among free-living adolescents. DESIGN: 89 adolescents (age=13-14years old) from eight secondary schools in New South Wales (NSW), Australia wore wrist-worn GENEActiv and hip-worn ActiGraph (GT3X+) accelerometers simultaneously for seven days and completed an accelerometry behavior questionnaire. METHODS: Bivariate correlations between the wrist- and hip-worn out-put were used to determine concurrent validity. Paired samples t-test were used to compare minutes per day in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Group means and paired sample t-tests were used to analyze participants' perceptions of the wrist- and hip-worn monitoring protocols to assist with determining the feasibility. RESULTS: Wrist-worn accelerometry compared favorably with the hip-worn in average activity (r=0.88, p<0.001) and MVPA (r=0.84 p<0.001, mean difference=3.54min/day, SD=12.37). The wrist-worn accelerometer had 50% fewer non-valid days (75 days, 12%) than the hip-worn accelerometer (n=152, 24.4%). Participants reported they liked to wear the device on the wrist (p<0.01), and that it was less uncomfortable (p=0.02) and less embarrassing to wear on the wrist (p<0.01). Furthermore, that they would be more willing to wear the device again on the wrist over the hip (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal there is a strong linear relationship between wrist- and hip-worn accelerometer out-put among adolescents in free-living conditions. Adolescent compliance was significantly higher with wrist placement, with participants reporting that it was more comfortable and less embarrassing to wear on the wrist.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the comparability and feasibility of wrist- and hip-worn accelerometers among free-living adolescents. DESIGN: 89 adolescents (age=13-14years old) from eight secondary schools in New South Wales (NSW), Australia wore wrist-worn GENEActiv and hip-worn ActiGraph (GT3X+) accelerometers simultaneously for seven days and completed an accelerometry behavior questionnaire. METHODS: Bivariate correlations between the wrist- and hip-worn out-put were used to determine concurrent validity. Paired samples t-test were used to compare minutes per day in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Group means and paired sample t-tests were used to analyze participants' perceptions of the wrist- and hip-worn monitoring protocols to assist with determining the feasibility. RESULTS: Wrist-worn accelerometry compared favorably with the hip-worn in average activity (r=0.88, p<0.001) and MVPA (r=0.84 p<0.001, mean difference=3.54min/day, SD=12.37). The wrist-worn accelerometer had 50% fewer non-valid days (75 days, 12%) than the hip-worn accelerometer (n=152, 24.4%). Participants reported they liked to wear the device on the wrist (p<0.01), and that it was less uncomfortable (p=0.02) and less embarrassing to wear on the wrist (p<0.01). Furthermore, that they would be more willing to wear the device again on the wrist over the hip (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal there is a strong linear relationship between wrist- and hip-worn accelerometer out-put among adolescents in free-living conditions. Adolescent compliance was significantly higher with wrist placement, with participants reporting that it was more comfortable and less embarrassing to wear on the wrist.
Authors: Sarah G Sanders; Elizabeth Yakes Jimenez; Natalie H Cole; Alena Kuhlemeier; Grace L McCauley; M Lee Van Horn; Alberta S Kong Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2019-07-17
Authors: Brenda Jeng; Katie L J Cederberg; Byron Lai; Jeffer E Sasaki; Marcas M Bamman; Robert W Motl Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 2.840
Authors: Erica G Soltero; Neeku Navabi; Kiley B Vander Wyst; Edith Hernandez; Felipe G Castro; Stephanie L Ayers; Jenny Mendez; Gabriel Q Shaibi Journal: Health Educ Behav Date: 2021-11-18
Authors: Kirsten Corder; Stephen J Sharp; Stephanie T Jong; Campbell Foubister; Helen Elizabeth Brown; Emma K Wells; Sofie M Armitage; Caroline H D Croxson; Anna Vignoles; Paul O Wilkinson; Edward C F Wilson; Esther M F van Sluijs Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Michael B Owen; Charlotte Kerner; Sarah L Taylor; Robert J Noonan; Lisa Newson; Maria-Christina Kosteli; Whitney B Curry; Stuart J Fairclough Journal: Children (Basel) Date: 2018-05-31
Authors: Giovanni Berardi; Jonathon W Senefeld; Sandra K Hunter; Marie K Hoeger Bement Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 3.346