Literature DB >> 34837754

A comparison of accelerometer cut-points for measuring physical activity and sedentary time in adolescents with Down syndrome.

Bethany Forseth1, Jordan A Carlson2, Erik A Willis3, Brian C Helsel4, Lauren T Ptomey4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: No cut-points have been developed for youth with Down syndrome; there is concern that altered gait patterns, decreased energy expenditure and exercise capacity of individuals with Down syndrome may produce inaccurate physical activity data if accelerometer data are analyzed using cut-points from populations with typical development and other IDD diagnoses. AIM: To compare physical activity and sedentary time across existing accelerometer cut-point methods in adolescents with Down syndrome.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional analysis, participants diagnosed with Down syndrome (n = 37; 15.5 ± 1.9 years; 57 % female) wore an accelerometer on their non-dominant hip for seven-days. Data were analyzed and compared across four physical activity intensity cut-points: Evenson, Freedson 4-MET, McGarty, and Romanizi. OUTCOMES &
RESULTS: Differences in time spent in each intensity across cut-point methods were evident for sedentary (448-615 min/day), light (72-303 min/day) and moderate-to-vigorous (12-77 min/day) activities. Between 0.0-67.6 % of the sample met the physical activity guidelines, depending on the cut-point method selected. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: This study presents the wide variation of accumulated physical activity minutes when different cut-points are applied to individuals with Down syndrome. There is a critical need to establish Down syndrome-specific measures of physical activity assessment rather than applying methods developed for their peers with typical development. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: This paper highlights concerns over the application of objective measurements of physical activity in youth with Down syndrome from measurement methods derived from populations with typical development. This is the first manuscript to examine this issue in a sample comprised solely of youth with Down syndrome. Results demonstrate the large variation in time spent in each activity intensity that arise due to the application of different cut-point methods.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Accelerometer; Intellectual and developmental disabilities; Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity; Physical activity guidelines; Sedentary

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34837754      PMCID: PMC8724392          DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2021.104126

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Res Dev Disabil        ISSN: 0891-4222


  50 in total

Review 1.  Calibration of accelerometer output for children.

Authors:  Patty Freedson; David Pober; Kathleen F Janz
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 5.411

2.  Physical activity levels of adolescents with and without intellectual disabilities during physical education and recess.

Authors:  Chien-Yu Pan; Chin-Wen Liu; I Chiao Chung; Po-Jen Hsu
Journal:  Res Dev Disabil       Date:  2014-11-16

3.  Metabolic rate and accelerometer output during walking in people with Down syndrome.

Authors:  Stamatis Agiovlasitis; Robert W Motl; Christopher A Fahs; Sushant M Ranadive; Huimin Yan; George H Echols; Lindy Rossow; Bo Fernhall
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 5.411

4.  Triaxial accelerometer output predicts oxygen uptake in adults with Down syndrome.

Authors:  Anthony T Allred; Poram Choi; Stamatis Agiovlasitis
Journal:  Disabil Rehabil       Date:  2019-12-27       Impact factor: 3.033

5.  Individual and family-based approaches to increase physical activity in adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Rationale and design for an 18 month randomized trial.

Authors:  L T Ptomey; R A Washburn; J Lee; J L Greene; A N Szabo-Reed; J R Sherman; J C Danon; L N Osborne; T D Little; J E Donnelly
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2019-07-22       Impact factor: 2.226

6.  Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth.

Authors:  Ian Janssen; Allana G Leblanc
Journal:  Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act       Date:  2010-05-11       Impact factor: 6.457

7.  Calibration of an accelerometer during free-living activities in children.

Authors:  Calum Mattocks; Sam Leary; Andy Ness; Kevin Deere; Joanne Saunders; Kate Tilling; Joanne Kirkby; Steven N Blair; Chris Riddoch
Journal:  Int J Pediatr Obes       Date:  2007

Review 8.  Assessing physical activity using wearable monitors: measures of physical activity.

Authors:  Nancy F Butte; Ulf Ekelund; Klaas R Westerterp
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 5.411

9.  Comparisons of prediction equations for estimating energy expenditure in youth.

Authors:  Youngwon Kim; Scott E Crouter; Jung-Min Lee; Phillip M Dixon; Glenn A Gaesser; Gregory J Welk
Journal:  J Sci Med Sport       Date:  2014-10-18       Impact factor: 4.319

10.  Calibration and Cross-Validation of the ActiGraph wGT3X+ Accelerometer for the Estimation of Physical Activity Intensity in Children with Intellectual Disabilities.

Authors:  Arlene M McGarty; Victoria Penpraze; Craig A Melville
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Resistance training and Down Syndrome: A narrative review on considerations for exercise prescription and safety.

Authors:  Geiziane Leite Rodrigues Melo; Ivo Vieira de Sousa Neto; Eduardo Fernandes da Fonseca; Whitley Stone; Dahan da Cunha Nascimento
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-09-27       Impact factor: 4.755

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.