Dataset Information

Estimating physical activity and sedentary behaviour in a free-living environment: A comparative study between Fitbit Charge 2 and Actigraph GT3X.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Activity trackers such as the Fitbit Charge 2 enable users and researchers to monitor physical activity in daily life, which could be beneficial for changing behaviour. However, the accuracy of the Fitbit Charge 2 in a free-living environment is largely unknown. OBJECTIVE:To investigate the agreement between Fitbit Charge 2 and ActiGraph GT3X for the estimation of steps, energy expenditure, time in sedentary behaviour, and light and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity under free-living conditions, and further examine to what extent placing the ActiGraph on the wrist as opposed to the hip would affect the findings. METHODS:41 adults (n = 10 males, n = 31 females) were asked to wear a Fitbit Charge 2 device and two ActiGraph GT3X devices (one on the hip and one on the wrist) for seven consecutive days and fill out a log of wear times. Agreement was assessed through Bland-Altman plots combined with multilevel analysis. RESULTS:The Fitbit measured 1,492 steps/day more than the hip-worn ActiGraph (limits of agreement [LoA] = -2,250; 5,234), while for sedentary time, it measured 25 min/day less (LoA = -137; 87). Both Bland-Altman plots showed fixed bias. For time in light physical activity, the Fitbit measured 59 min/day more (LoA = -52;169). For time in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, the Fitbit measured 31 min/day less (LoA = -132; 71) and for activity energy expenditure it measured 408 kcal/day more than the hip-worn ActiGraph (LoA = -385; 1,200). For the two latter outputs, the plots indicated proportional bias. Similar or more pronounced discrepancies, mostly in opposite direction, appeared when comparing to the wrist-worn ActiGraph. CONCLUSION:Moderate to substantial differences between devices were found for most outputs, which could be due to differences in algorithms. Caution should be taken if replacing one device with another and when comparing results.

SUBMITTER: Mikkelsen MK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7289355 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Estimating physical activity and sedentary behaviour in a free-living environment: A comparative study between Fitbit Charge 2 and Actigraph GT3X.

Mikkelsen Marie-Louise K MK Berg-Beckhoff Gabriele G Frederiksen Peder P Horgan Graham G O'Driscoll Ruairi R Palmeira António L AL Scott Sarah E SE Stubbs James J Heitmann Berit L BL Larsen Sofus C SC

PloS one 20200611 6

<h4>Background</h4>Activity trackers such as the Fitbit Charge 2 enable users and researchers to monitor physical activity in daily life, which could be beneficial for changing behaviour. However, the accuracy of the Fitbit Charge 2 in a free-living environment is largely unknown.<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate the agreement between Fitbit Charge 2 and ActiGraph GT3X for the estimation of steps, energy expenditure, time in sedentary behaviour, and light and moderate-to-vigorous physical activit ...[more]

PMID: 32525912

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPhysical activity (PA) is reduced in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS), though it is known to aid in symptom and fatigue management. Methods for measuring PA are diverse and the impact of this heterogeneity on study outcomes is unclear. We aimed to clarify this impact by comparing common methods for deriving PA metrics in MS populations.MethodsFirst, a rapid review of existing literature identified methods for calculating PA in studies which used the Actigraph GT3X in populations with MS. We then compared methods in a prospective study on 42 persons with MS [EDSS 4.5 (3.5-6)] during a voluntary course of inpatient neurorehabilitation. Mixed-effects linear regression identified methodological factors which influenced PA measurements. Non-parametric hypothesis tests, correlations, and agreement statistics assessed overall and pairwise differences between methods.ResultsIn the rapid review, searches identified 421 unique records. Sixty-nine records representing 51 eligible studies exhibited substantial heterogeneity in methodology and reporting practices. In a subsequent comparative study, multiple methods for deriving six PA metrics (step count, activity counts, total time in PA, sedentary time, time in light PA, time in moderate to vigorous PA), were identified and directly compared. All metrics were sensitive to methodological factors such as the selected preprocessing filter, data source (vertical vs. vector magnitude counts), and cutpoint. Additionally, sedentary time was sensitive to wear time definitions. Pairwise correlation and agreement between methods varied from weak (minimum correlation: 0.15, minimum agreement: 0.03) to perfect (maximum correlation: 1.00, maximum agreement: 1.00). Methodological factors biased both point estimates of PA and correlations between PA and clinical assessments.ConclusionsMethodological heterogeneity of existing literature is high, and this heterogeneity may confound studies which use the Actigraph GT3X. Step counts were highly sensitive to the filter used to process raw accelerometer data. Sedentary time was particularly sensitive to methodology, and we recommend using total time in PA instead. Several, though not all, methods for deriving light PA and moderate to vigorous PA yielded nearly identical results. PA metrics based on vertical axis counts tended to outperform those based on vector magnitude counts. Additional research is needed to establish the relative validity of existing methods.

Dataset Information

Estimating physical activity and sedentary behaviour in a free-living environment: A comparative study between Fitbit Charge 2 and Actigraph GT3X.

Publications

Estimating physical activity and sedentary behaviour in a free-living environment: A comparative study between Fitbit Charge 2 and Actigraph GT3X.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets