Claire E Baldwin1,2, Kylie N Johnston1, Alex V Rowlands1,3,4,5, Marie T Williams1,5. 1. Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide. 2. Flinders Medical Centre, Southern Adelaide Health Service, Bedford Park, S.A., Australia. 3. Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester. 4. Leicester-Loughborough Diet, Lifestyle and Physical Activity Biomedical Research Unit, National Institute for Health Research, Leicester, United Kingdom. 5. Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity (ARENA).
Abstract
Purpose: We estimated the agreement of a thigh-worn accelerometer, the activPAL, used to measure activity and sedentary parameters, with observed mobility assessments of intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. Method: We prospectively compared activPAL measurements with direct observation during assessments at discharge from the ICU or acute hospital in eight participants with a median age of 56 (1st-3rd quartile 48-65) years and an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 23 (1st-3rd quartile 17-24). Frequency of sit-to-stand transitions; time spent standing, stepping, upright (standing and stepping), and sedentary (lying/sitting); and total steps were described; analysis was performed using Bland-Altman plots and calculating the absolute percent error. Results: All sit-to-stand transitions were accurately detected. The mean difference on the Bland-Altman plots suggested an overestimation of standing time with the activPAL of 31 (95% CI: -9, 71) seconds and underestimation of stepping time by 25 (95% CI: -47, -3) seconds. The largest median absolute percent errors were for standing time (21.9%) and stepping time (18.7%); time spent upright (1.7%) or sedentary (0.3%) was more accurately estimated. The activPAL underestimated total steps per session, achieving the largest percent error (70.8%). Conclusion: Because it underestimated step count, the activPAL likely incorrectly recorded stepping time as standing time, so that time spent upright was the measure of activity with the smallest error. Sedentary behaviour, including frequency of transitions, was validly assessed.
Purpose: We estimated the agreement of a thigh-worn accelerometer, the activPAL, used to measure activity and sedentary parameters, with observed mobility assessments of intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. Method: We prospectively compared activPAL measurements with direct observation during assessments at discharge from the ICU or acute hospital in eight participants with a median age of 56 (1st-3rd quartile 48-65) years and an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 23 (1st-3rd quartile 17-24). Frequency of sit-to-stand transitions; time spent standing, stepping, upright (standing and stepping), and sedentary (lying/sitting); and total steps were described; analysis was performed using Bland-Altman plots and calculating the absolute percent error. Results: All sit-to-stand transitions were accurately detected. The mean difference on the Bland-Altman plots suggested an overestimation of standing time with the activPAL of 31 (95% CI: -9, 71) seconds and underestimation of stepping time by 25 (95% CI: -47, -3) seconds. The largest median absolute percent errors were for standing time (21.9%) and stepping time (18.7%); time spent upright (1.7%) or sedentary (0.3%) was more accurately estimated. The activPAL underestimated total steps per session, achieving the largest percent error (70.8%). Conclusion: Because it underestimated step count, the activPAL likely incorrectly recorded stepping time as standing time, so that time spent upright was the measure of activity with the smallest error. Sedentary behaviour, including frequency of transitions, was validly assessed.
Entities:
Keywords:
accelerometry; exercise; intensive care units; physical therapy; validation studies
Authors: Rodrigo Cerqueira Borges; Celso R F Carvalho; Alexandra Siqueira Colombo; Mariucha Pereira da Silva Borges; Francisco Garcia Soriano Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Steve R Fisher; James E Graham; Kenneth J Ottenbacher; Rachel Deer; Glenn V Ostir Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Catherine E Lang; Jillian R Macdonald; Darcy S Reisman; Lara Boyd; Teresa Jacobson Kimberley; Sheila M Schindler-Ivens; T George Hornby; Sandy A Ross; Patricia L Scheets Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Zubaida Alghaeed; John J Reilly; Sebastien F M Chastin; Anne Martin; Gwyneth Davies; James Y Paton Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kristin E Schwab; An Q To; Jennifer Chang; Bonnie Ronish; Dale M Needham; Jennifer L Martin; Biren B Kamdar Journal: J Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-07-22 Impact factor: 2.889
Authors: Sarina Fazio; Amy Doroy; Natalie Da Marto; Sandra Taylor; Nicholas Anderson; Heather M Young; Jason Y Adams Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2020-04-29
Authors: David Thivel; Alice Corteval; Jean-Marie Favreau; Emmanuel Bergeret; Ludovic Samalin; Frédéric Costes; Farouk Toumani; Christian Dualé; Bruno Pereira; Alain Eschalier; Nicole Fearnbach; Martine Duclos; Anne Tournadre Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Niek Koenders; Joost P H Seeger; Teun van der Giessen; Ties J van den Hurk; Indy G M Smits; Anne M Tankink; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden; Thomas J Hoogeboom Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 3.240