Dataset Information

Accelerometry analysis options produce large differences in lifestyle physical activity measurement.

ABSTRACT: Objective measurement of physical activity (PA) using accelerometers has become increasingly popular across recreational and clinical applications. However, the effects of multiple processing algorithms, filters, and corrections on PA measurement variability may be underappreciated.

Objective

To examine how lifestyle PA estimates are impacted by multiple available scoring methods.

Approach

Wrist-worn accelerometers (ActiGraph GT3X+) were worn by 132 adults (87 F) having various activity levels for one week. Lifestyle PA was assessed across four PA domains: daily energy expenditure (EE); active EE; moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA); and steps using 1-5 algorithms per domain, with/without wrist correction and low-frequency-extension (LFE). Estimates were compared to self-report (International Physical Activity Questionnaire).

Main results

PA estimates differed between algorithms with variable but frequently large effect sizes (d = 0.08-1.88). The wrist correction reduced PA estimates across all domains (p < 0.05, d = 0.26-3.04) except step counts and one daily EE algorithm (d = 0.0). Conversely, the LFE increased step counts (d = 1.44, p < 0.05) but minimally affected all other outcomes (d = 0.08-0.20, p < 0.05). Correlations between objective and self-reported PA were small to moderate (ρ = 0.22-0.45) and decreased with the wrist correction.

Significance

Measurement of PA using accelerometry is highly dependent on algorithm and filter selection; previously validated methods are therefore not interchangeable. Users should take caution when interpreting absolute PA estimates, and reporting standards should require detailed methodology disclosure to optimize comparisons across studies.

SUBMITTER: Mueller M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8182644 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Mobility impairment is common in persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) and can be assessed with clinical tests and surveys that have restricted ecological validity. Commercial research-based accelerometers are considered to be more valuable as they measure real-life mobility. Smartphone accelerometry might be an easily accessible alternative. Objective: To explore smartphone accelerometry in comparison to clinical tests, surveys, and a wrist-worn ActiGraph in pwMS and controls. Methods: Sixty-seven pwMS and 70 matched controls underwent mobility tests and surveys. Real-life data were collected with a smartphone and an ActiGraph over 7 days. We explored different smartphone metrics in a technical validation course and computed afterward correlation between ActiGraph (steps per minute), smartphone accelerometry (variance of vector magnitude), clinical tests, and surveys. We also determined the ability to separate between patients and controls as well as between different disability groups. Results: Based on the technical validation, we found the variance of the vector magnitude as a reliable estimate to discriminate wear time and no wear-time of the smartphone. Due to a further association with different activity levels, it was selected for real-life analyses. In the cross-sectional study, ActiGraph correlated moderately (r = 0.43, p < 0.05) with the smartphone but less with clinical tests (rho between |0.211| and |0.337|). Smartphone data showed stronger correlations with age (rho = -0.487) and clinical tests (rho between |0.565| and |0.605|). ActiGraph only differed between pwMS and controls (p < 0.001) but not between disability groups. At the same time, the smartphone showed differences between pwMS and controls, between RRMS and PP-/SPMS, and between participants with/without ambulatory impairment (all p < 0.001). Conclusions: Smartphone accelerometry provides better estimates of mobility and disability than a wrist-worn standard accelerometer in a free-living context for both controls and pwMS. Given the fact that no additional device is needed, smartphone accelerometry might be a convenient outcome of real-life ambulation in healthy individuals and chronic diseases such as MS.

Project description:PurposeUnderstanding factors that influence accurate assessment of physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB) is important to measurement development, epidemiologic studies, and interventions. This study examined agreement between self-reported (International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Long Form [IPAQ-LF]) and accelerometry-based estimates of PA and SB across six countries and identified correlates of between-method agreement.MethodsSelf-report and objective (accelerometry-based) PA and SB data were collected in 2002-2011 from 3865 adult participants in eight cities from six countries (Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, United Kingdom, and United States). Between-method relative agreement (correlation) and absolute disagreement (mean difference between conceptually and intensity-matched IPAQ-LF and accelerometry-based PA and SB variables) were estimated. Also, sociodemographic characteristics and PA patterns were examined as correlates of between-method agreement.ResultsObserved relative agreement (relationships of IPAQ-LF with accelerometry-based PA and SB variables) was small to moderate (r = 0.05-0.37) and was moderated by sociodemographic (age, sex, weight status, and education) and behavioral (PA-type) factors. The absolute disagreement was large, with participants self-reporting higher PA intensity and total time in moderate-to-vigorous-intensity PA than accelerometry. Also, self-reported sitting time was lower than accelerometry-based sedentary behavior. After adjusting for sociodemographic and behavioral factors, the absolute disagreement between pairs of IPAQ-LF and accelerometry-based PA variables remained significantly different across cities/countries.ConclusionsPresent findings suggest systematic cultural and/or linguistic and sociodemographic differences in absolute agreement between the IPAQ-LF and the accelerometry-based PA and SB variables. These results have implications for the interpretation of international PA and SB data and correlate/determinant studies. They call for further efforts to improve such measures.