Miriam H Eisenberg1, L Alison Phillips2, Lauren Fowler3, Philip J Moore3. 1. Health Behavior Branch, Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD. 2. Iowa State University, Department of Psychology, Ames, Iowa. 3. The George Washington University, Department of Psychology, Washington, DC.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: E-diaries and accelerometers promise more objective, real-time measurements of health behavior. However, social-psychological theory suggests that using electronic behavioral monitoring may influence rather than just record physical activity (PA), especially when a device is novel. DESIGN:Participants (n=146) were randomly assigned to either an accelerometer-only, e-diary-only, accelerometer+e-diary, or a no-technology control group for one week to assess how these technologies influenced PA, both perceived and actual, in young adults. METHOD: Participants reported their PA, overall and number of discrete exercise sessions (DES) at baseline and follow-up; accelerometers provided daily step counts and e-diaries captured daily reports of PA for the active week of the study. RESULTS: Average daily steps in the accelerometer-only and accelerometer+e-diary groups did not differ nor did daily reports of PA via e-diary compared to accelerometer+e-diary group, showing that neither technology affected actual PA. ANCOVAS tested group differences in perceived PA; The accelerometer-only group had increased perceived overall PA but not DES compared to no-technology control. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerometers may increase perceived overall PA, but the tested technologies did not increase DES or actual PA, suggesting that they may be viable unbiased measures of PA.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: E-diaries and accelerometers promise more objective, real-time measurements of health behavior. However, social-psychological theory suggests that using electronic behavioral monitoring may influence rather than just record physical activity (PA), especially when a device is novel. DESIGN:Participants (n=146) were randomly assigned to either an accelerometer-only, e-diary-only, accelerometer+e-diary, or a no-technology control group for one week to assess how these technologies influenced PA, both perceived and actual, in young adults. METHOD:Participants reported their PA, overall and number of discrete exercise sessions (DES) at baseline and follow-up; accelerometers provided daily step counts and e-diaries captured daily reports of PA for the active week of the study. RESULTS: Average daily steps in the accelerometer-only and accelerometer+e-diary groups did not differ nor did daily reports of PA via e-diary compared to accelerometer+e-diary group, showing that neither technology affected actual PA. ANCOVAS tested group differences in perceived PA; The accelerometer-only group had increased perceived overall PA but not DES compared to no-technology control. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerometers may increase perceived overall PA, but the tested technologies did not increase DES or actual PA, suggesting that they may be viable unbiased measures of PA.
Authors: Mihaela Tanasescu; Michael F Leitzmann; Eric B Rimm; Walter C Willett; Meir J Stampfer; Frank B Hu Journal: JAMA Date: 2002 Oct 23-30 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ayedh D Alahmari; Beverly S Kowlessar; Anant R C Patel; Alex J Mackay; James P Allinson; Jadwiga A Wedzicha; Gavin C Donaldson Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2016-04-28 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Stephen Sutton; Ann-Louise Kinmonth; Wendy Hardeman; Dyfrig Hughes; Sue Boase; A Toby Prevost; Ian Kellar; Jonathan Graffy; Simon Griffin; Andrew Farmer Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2014-12
Authors: Umar A R Chaudhry; Charlotte Wahlich; Rebecca Fortescue; Derek G Cook; Rachel Knightly; Tess Harris Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 6.457