TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparing accelerometer, pedometer and a questionnaire for measuring physical activity in bronchiectasis
T2 - a validity and feasibility study?
AU - O'Neill, B.
AU - McDonough, S. M.
AU - Wilson, J. J.
AU - Bradbury, I.
AU - Hayes, K.
AU - Kirk, A.
AU - Kent, L.
AU - Cosgrove, D.
AU - Bradley, J. M.
AU - Tully, M. A.
PY - 2017/1/14
Y1 - 2017/1/14
N2 - Background: There are challenges
for researchers and clinicians to select the most appropriate physical activity
tool, and a balance between precision and feasibility is needed. Currently it
is unclear which physical activity tool should be used to assess physical
activity in Bronchiectasis. The aim of this research is to compare assessment
methods (pedometer and IPAQ) to our criterion method (ActiGraph) for the
measurement of physical activity dimensions in Bronchiectasis (BE), and to
assess their feasibility and acceptability.
Methods: Patients in this analysis
were enrolled in a cross-sectional study. The ActiGraph and pedometer were worn
for seven consecutive days and the IPAQ was completed for the same period.
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 20 (IBM). Descriptive statistics
were used; the percentage agreement between ActiGraph and the other measures
were calculated using limits of agreement. Feedback about the feasibility of
the activity monitors and the IPAQ was obtained. Results: There were 55 (22
male) data sets available. For step count there was no significant difference
between the ActiGraph and Pedometer, however, total physical activity time
(mins) as recorded by the ActiGraph was significantly higher than the pedometer
(mean ± SD, 232 (75) vs. 63 (32)). Levels of agreement between the two devices
was very good for step count (97% agreement); and variation in the levels of
agreement were within accepted limits of ±2 standard deviations from the mean
value. IPAQ reported more bouted- moderate - vigorous physical activity (MVPA)
[mean, SD; 167(170) vs 6(9) mins/day], and significantly less sedentary time
than ActiGraph [mean, SD; 362(115) vs 634(76) vmins/day]. There were low levels
of agreement between the two tools (57% sedentary behaviour; 0% MVPA10+),
with IPAQ under-reporting sedentary behaviour and over-reporting MVPA10+
compared to ActiGraph. The monitors were found to be feasible and acceptable by
participants and researchers; while the IPAQ was accepta ble to use, most
patients required assistance to complete it.
Conclusions: Accurate measurement
of physical activity is feasible in BE and will be valuable for future trials
of therapeutic interventions. ActiGraph or pedometer could be used to measure
simple daily step counts, but ActiGraph was superior as it measured intensity
of physical activity and was a more precise measure of time spent walking. The
IPAQ does not appear to represent an accurate measure of physical activity in
this population.
AB - Background: There are challenges
for researchers and clinicians to select the most appropriate physical activity
tool, and a balance between precision and feasibility is needed. Currently it
is unclear which physical activity tool should be used to assess physical
activity in Bronchiectasis. The aim of this research is to compare assessment
methods (pedometer and IPAQ) to our criterion method (ActiGraph) for the
measurement of physical activity dimensions in Bronchiectasis (BE), and to
assess their feasibility and acceptability.
Methods: Patients in this analysis
were enrolled in a cross-sectional study. The ActiGraph and pedometer were worn
for seven consecutive days and the IPAQ was completed for the same period.
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 20 (IBM). Descriptive statistics
were used; the percentage agreement between ActiGraph and the other measures
were calculated using limits of agreement. Feedback about the feasibility of
the activity monitors and the IPAQ was obtained. Results: There were 55 (22
male) data sets available. For step count there was no significant difference
between the ActiGraph and Pedometer, however, total physical activity time
(mins) as recorded by the ActiGraph was significantly higher than the pedometer
(mean ± SD, 232 (75) vs. 63 (32)). Levels of agreement between the two devices
was very good for step count (97% agreement); and variation in the levels of
agreement were within accepted limits of ±2 standard deviations from the mean
value. IPAQ reported more bouted- moderate - vigorous physical activity (MVPA)
[mean, SD; 167(170) vs 6(9) mins/day], and significantly less sedentary time
than ActiGraph [mean, SD; 362(115) vs 634(76) vmins/day]. There were low levels
of agreement between the two tools (57% sedentary behaviour; 0% MVPA10+),
with IPAQ under-reporting sedentary behaviour and over-reporting MVPA10+
compared to ActiGraph. The monitors were found to be feasible and acceptable by
participants and researchers; while the IPAQ was accepta ble to use, most
patients required assistance to complete it.
Conclusions: Accurate measurement
of physical activity is feasible in BE and will be valuable for future trials
of therapeutic interventions. ActiGraph or pedometer could be used to measure
simple daily step counts, but ActiGraph was superior as it measured intensity
of physical activity and was a more precise measure of time spent walking. The
IPAQ does not appear to represent an accurate measure of physical activity in
this population.
KW - actigraph
KW - bronchiectasis
KW - pedometer
KW - physical activity measurement
KW - step count
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85009350705
UR - http://respiratory-research.biomedcentral.com/
U2 - 10.1186/s12931-016-0497-2
DO - 10.1186/s12931-016-0497-2
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85009350705
SN - 1465-9921
VL - 18
JO - Respiratory Research
JF - Respiratory Research
IS - 16
M1 - 16
ER -