Dataset Information

Minimum accelerometer wear-time for reliable estimates of physical activity and sedentary behaviour of people receiving haemodialysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Low levels of physical activity are implicated in low life expectancies of people receiving maintenance haemodialysis. Accelerometers are increasingly being used to quantify activity behaviours of this population but guidance to quality-assure such data is lacking. The objective of this study was to provide data processing and reduction recommendations to ensure accelerometer-derived outcomes are sufficiently reliable for interpretative analysis.

Methods

Seventy people receiving maintenance haemodialysis (age 55.9 ± 15.7 years, 34% women, 23% diabetic) from a single outpatient renal unit volunteered for the study. Participants wore Actigraph GT3x and ActivPAL monitors during waking hours over seven days. Reliability of accelerometer output (normalised to wear-time) was assessed via intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The Spearman-Brown prophecy formula was subsequently applied to the ICCs to derive the minimum required accelerometer wear-time for each behavioural outcome.

Results

Monitor wear compliance was greater on dialysis compared to non-dialysis days (90% v 77%). Participants were significantly more active on non-dialysis days compared to dialysis days but there were no significant differences in estimated behaviours between days within the same condition. Average measure ICCs for all accelerometer outcomes were high (range 0.76-0.96). Computations indicated that habitual physical activity and sedentary behaviour could be estimated with a minimum reliability level of 0.80 from one dialysis day and two non-dialysis days, and at least eight hours monitor wear per day. Applying this rubric allowed 90% of participant data to be retained for further analysis.

Conclusions

Regardless of accelerometer, one dialysis and two non-dialysis days data with a minimum of eight hours wear each day should enable habitual activity of people receiving maintenance haemodialysis to be characterised with acceptable reliability. These recommendations reconcile the tension between wear-time criteria stringency and retention of an adequately representative sample.

SUBMITTER: Prescott S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7296937 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimTo undertake a review of the methods and findings of published research evaluating the influence of season on accelerometer-determined sedentary behaviour (SB) and physical activity (PA) in children.MethodsA literature search was carried out using PubMed, Embase, Medline and Web of Science up to, and including, June 2011. The search strategy focused on four key elements: children, SB or PA, season and accelerometer. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English, included healthy study participants aged ≤ 18 years, reported at least one outcome variable derived from accelerometer-determined measurements, and compared SB or PA between two or more seasons, or controlled for season of measurement. Eligible papers were reviewed and evidence tables compiled reporting on publication year, country studied, study recruitment, consent rate, sample descriptives, study design, accelerometer protocol, valid accelerometer data receipt, season definition, statistical methods and key findings.ResultsSixteen of 819 articles were eligible for inclusion: children aged two to five years, six to twelve, or six to 18 years were included in five, six and five articles respectively. Six articles were from the UK, six from other European countries, three from the USA and one from New Zealand. Study sample sizes ranged from 64 to 5595. PA was reported in all articles but SB in only three. Only four studies were longitudinal and none of these reported SB. Seasonal variation in PA was reported in all UK studies, being highest in summer and lowest in winter. In four non-UK studies seasonal variation in PA was not found. Findings were inconclusive for SB.ConclusionThere is sufficient evidence to support public health interventions aimed at increasing PA during winter in UK children. No conclusions can be drawn regarding the effect of season on children's SB reflecting few studies of small sample size, lack of repeat measures, incomparable definitions of season and inconsistent accelerometer protocols. Future research should determine factors that drive seasonal patterns in PA and SB in children such as age, sex, and geographic and climatic setting to inform interventions and target populations.

Project description:Accelerometer-based activity monitors are widely used in research and surveillance applications for quantifying sedentary behavior (SB) and physical activity (PA). Considerable research has been done to refine methods for assessing PA, but relatively little attention has been given to operationalizing SB parameters (i.e., sedentary time and breaks) from accelerometer data - particularly in relation to health outcomes. This study investigated: (a) the accrued patterns of sedentary time and breaks; and (b) the associations of sedentary time and breaks in different bout durations with cardiovascular risk factors.Accelerometer data on 5,917 adults from the National Health Examination and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) 2003-2006 were used. Sedentary time and breaks at different bout durations (i.e., 1, 2-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, and ≥ 30-min) were obtained using a threshold of < 100 counts per minute. Sedentary time and breaks were regressed on cardiovascular risk factors (waist circumference, triglyceride, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol) and body mass index across bout durations.The results revealed that the majority of sedentary time occurred within relatively short bout durations (≈ 70% and ≈ 85% for < 5-min and < 10-min, respectively). The associations of sedentary time and breaks with health outcomes varied depending on how bout time was defined. Estimates of SB parameters based on bout durations of 5 min or shorter were associated with reduced cardiovascular risk factors while durations longer than 10-min were generally associated with increased risk factors.The present study demonstrates that the duration of sedentary bouts should be further considered when operationalizing the SB parameters from accelerometer data. The threshold of 5 minutes to define a bout is defensible, but a 10 minute threshold would provide a more conservative estimate to clearly capture the prolonged nature of sedentary behavior. Additional research is needed to determine the relative sensitivity and specificity of these thresholds.

Project description:BackgroundStroke survivors are often physically inactive as well as sedentary,and may sit for long periods of time each day. This increases cardiometabolic risk and has impacts on physical and other functions. Interventions to reduce or interrupt periods of sedentary time, as well as to increase physical activity after stroke, could reduce the risk of secondary cardiovascular events and mortality during life after stroke.ObjectivesTo determine whether interventions designed to reduce sedentary behaviour after stroke, or interventions with the potential to do so, can reduce the risk of death or secondary vascular events, modify cardiovascular risk, and reduce sedentary behaviour.Search methodsIn December 2019, we searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, and PEDro. We also searched registers of ongoing trials, screened reference lists, and contacted experts in the field.Selection criteriaRandomised trials comparing interventions to reduce sedentary time with usual care, no intervention, or waiting-list control, attention control, sham intervention or adjunct intervention. We also included interventions intended to fragment or interrupt periods of sedentary behaviour.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently selected studies and performed 'Risk of bias' assessments. We analyzed data using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence with the GRADE approach.Main resultsWe included 10 studies with 753 people with stroke. Five studies used physical activity interventions, four studies used a multicomponent lifestyle intervention, and one study used an intervention to reduce and interrupt sedentary behaviour. In all studies, the risk of bias was high or unclear in two or more domains. Nine studies had high risk of bias in at least one domain. The interventions did not increase or reduce deaths (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.03; 10 studies, 753 participants; low-certainty evidence), the incidence of recurrent cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.01; 10 studies, 753 participants; low-certainty evidence), the incidence of falls (and injuries) (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 10 studies, 753 participants; low-certainty evidence), or incidence of other adverse events (moderate-certainty evidence). Interventions did not increase or reduce the amount of sedentary behaviour time (mean difference (MD) +0.13 hours/day, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.68; 7 studies, 300 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were too few data to examine effects on patterns of sedentary behaviour. The effect of interventions on cardiometabolic risk factors allowed very limited meta-analysis.Authors' conclusionsSedentary behaviour research in stroke seems important, yet the evidence is currently incomplete, and we found no evidence for beneficial effects. Current World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend reducing the amount of sedentary time in people with disabilities, in general. The evidence is currently not strong enough to guide practice on how best to reduce sedentariness specifically in people with stroke. More high-quality randomised trials are needed, particularly involving participants with mobility limitations. Trials should include longer-term interventions specifically targeted at reducing time spent sedentary, risk factor outcomes, objective measures of sedentary behaviour (and physical activity), and long-term follow-up.