Comparing accelerometer, pedometer and a questionnaire for measuring physical activity in bronchiectasis: a validity and feasibility study?

B O'Neill, S M McDonough, J J Wilson, I Bradbury, K Hayes, A Kirk, L Kent, D Cosgrove, J M Bradley, M A Tully, B O'Neill, S M McDonough, J J Wilson, I Bradbury, K Hayes, A Kirk, L Kent, D Cosgrove, J M Bradley, M A Tully

Abstract

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.

Trial registration: Clinical Trials Registration Number NCT01569009 : Physical Activity in Bronchiectasis.

Keywords: Actigraph; Bronchiectasis; Pedometer; Physical activity measurement; Step count.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Bland-Altman Plot of ActiGraph vs Pedometer step counts. The mean (SD) difference in steps was -167 (1485), and the upper and lower LOA (2745, -3078)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Bland-Altman Plot of ActiGraph vs Pedometer walk time. The mean (SD) difference in walk time was 165 (53) minutes and the upper and lower LOA (269, 62)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Bland-Altman Plot of ActiGraph vs IPAQ time in moderate-vigorous physical activity bouts (MVPA10+). The mean (SD) difference in bouts was 272 (135), and the upper and lower LOA (536, 7)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Bland-Altman Plot of ActiGraph vs IPAQ time in sedentary behaviour. The mean (SD) difference in sedentary behaviour was -160 (171) minutes, and upper and lower LOA (175, -495)

References

    1. Global recommendations on physical activity for health. World Health Organistaion; 2010. [] accessed 17 Feb 2016. ISBN 978 92 4 159 997 9.
    1. Spruit MA, Singh SJ, Garvey C, ZuWallack R, Nici L, Rochester C, ATS/ERS Task Force on Pulmonary Rehabilitation et al. An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement: key concepts and advances in pulmonary rehabilitation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188:e13–64. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201309-1634ST.
    1. Watz H, Pitta F, Rochester CL, Garcia-Aymerich J, ZuWallack R, Troosters T, et al. An official European Respiratory Society statement on physical activity in COPD. Eur Respir J. 2014;44:1521–37. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00046814.
    1. Bradley JM, O’Neill B, Kent L, Hulzebos EHJ, Arets B, Hebestreit H, on behalf of the Exercise Working Group European CF Society Physical activity assessment in cystic fibrosis: a position statement endorsed by the European Cystic Fibrosis Society Board. J Cyst Fibros. 2015;14(6):e25–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jcf.2015.05.011.
    1. Bolton CE, Bevan-Smith EF, Blakey JD, Crowe P, Elkin SL, Garrod R, et al. British Thoracic Society guideline on pulmonary rehabilitation in adults: accredited by NICE. Thorax. 2013;68:ii1–30. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2013-203808.
    1. Burtin C, Hebestreit H. Rehabilitation in patients with chronic respiratory disease other than chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: exercise and physical activity interventions in cystic fibrosis and non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Respiration. 2015;89:181–9. doi: 10.1159/000375170.
    1. Ainsworth B, Cahalin L, Buman M, Ross R. The current state of physical activity assessment tools. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2015;57:387–95. doi: 10.1016/j.pcad.2014.10.005.
    1. Bradley JM, Kent L, Elborn JS, O’Neill B. Motion sensors for monitoring physical activity in cystic fibrosis: what is the next step? Phys Ther Rev. 2010;15:197–203. doi: 10.1179/1743288X10Y.0000000005.
    1. van Remoortel H, Giavedoni S, Raste Y, Burtin C, Louvaris Z, Gimeno-Santos E, et al. Validity of activity monitors in health and chronic disease: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:84. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-84.
    1. Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjostrom M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, et al. International Physical Activity Questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci sport Exer. 2003;35:1381–95. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000078924.61453.FB.
    1. Gimeno-Santos E, Frei A, Dobbels F, Rüdell K, Puhan MA, PROactive consortium Validity of instruments to measure physical activity may be questionable due to lack of conceptual frameworks: a systematic review. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9:86. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-9-86.
    1. Prince S, Adamo K, Hamel M, Hardt J, Gorber S, Tremblay M. A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008;5:56. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-5-56.
    1. Welk GL, McClain J, Ainsworth B. Protocols for evaluating equivalency of accelerometry-based activity monitors. Med Sci sport Exer. 2012;44:s39–49. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182399d8f.
    1. Greenhalgh J, Long AF, Brettle AJ, Grant MJ. Reviewing and selecting outcome measures for use in routine practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 1998;4:339–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.1998.tb00097.x.
    1. Bradley JM, Wilson JJ, Hayes K, Kent L, McDonough S, Tully MA, et al. Sedentary behaviour and physical activity in bronchiectasis: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pulm Med. 2015;15:61. doi: 10.1186/s12890-015-0046-7.
    1. Chalmers JD, Goeminne P, Aliberti S, McDonnell MJ, Lonni S, Davidson J, et al. The bronchiectasis severity index. An international derivation and validation study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;189:576–85. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201309-1575OC.
    1. Yang C, Hsu Y. A review of accelerometry-based wearable motion detectors for physical activity monitoring. Sensors. 2010;10:7772–88. doi: 10.3390/s100807772.
    1. Carr LJ, Mahar MT. Accuracy of intensity and inclinometer output of three activity monitors for identification of sedentary behavior and light intensity activity. J Obesity. 2012;2012;1–9. doi:10.1155/2012/460271.
    1. Chan CB, Tudor-Locke C. Real-world evaluation of a community-based pedometer intervention. J Phys Act Health. 2008;5:648–64. doi: 10.1123/jpah.5.5.648.
    1. Petersen CB, Severin M, Hansen AW, Curtis T, Grønbæk M, Tolstrup JS. A population-based randomized controlled trial of the effect of combining a pedometer with an intervention toolkit on physical activity among individuals with low levels of physical activity or fitness. Prev Med. 2012;54:125–30. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.12.012.
    1. Hospes G, Bossenbroek L, Ten Hacken NH, van Hengel P, De Greef MH. Enhancement of daily physical activity increases physical fitness of out clinic COPD patients: results of an exercise counseling program. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;75:274–8. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.10.005.
    1. Moore R, Berlowitz D, Denehy L, Jackson B, McDonald CF. Comparison of pedometer and activity diary for measurement of physical activity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 2009;29:57–61. doi: 10.1097/HCR.0b013e318192786c.
    1. Cavalheri V, Donária L, Ferreira T, Finatti M, Camillo CA, Cipulo Ramos EM, et al. Energy expenditure during daily activities as measured by two motion sensors in patients with COPD. Resp Med. 2011;105:922–9. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2011.01.004.
    1. Schneider PL, Crouter SE, Bassett DR. Pedometer measures of free-living physical activity: comparison of 13 models. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36:331–5. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000113486.60548.E9.
    1. Hagströmer M, Oja P, Sjöström M. The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ): a study of concurrent and construct validity. Public Health Nutr. 2006;9:755–62. doi: 10.1079/PHN2005898.
    1. Inal-Ince D, Savci S, Saglam M, Arikan H, Calik E, Vardar-Yagli N, et al. Predictors of physical inactivity in elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Int J Gerontol. 2013;8:193–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijge.2013.01.015.
    1. Hale LA, Pal J, Becker I. Measuring free-living physical activity in adults with and without neurologic dysfunction with a triaxial accelerometer. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:1765–71. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2008.02.027.
    1. Tudor-Locke C, Bassett DR., Jr How many steps/day are enough? Sports Med. 2004;34:1–8. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200434010-00001.
    1. Hart TL, Ainsworth BE, Tudor-Locke C. Objective and subjective measures of sedentary behavior and physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43:449–56. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181ef5a93.
    1. Gretebeck RJ, Montoye HJ. Variability of some objective measures of physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1992;24(10):1167–72. doi: 10.1249/00005768-199210000-00016.
    1. Trost SG, McIver KL, Pate RR. Conducting accelerometer-based activity assessments in field-based research. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(Suppl 11):S531–43. doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000185657.86065.98.
    1. Choi L, Liu Z, Matthews CE, Buchowski MS. Validation of accelerometer wear and nonwear time classification algorithm. Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2011;43:357–64. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181ed61a3.
    1. Freedson PS, Melanson E, Sirard J. Calibration of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30:777–81. doi: 10.1097/00005768-199805000-00021.
    1. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:135–60. doi: 10.1191/096228099673819272.
    1. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 2. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 2000.
    1. Bauman A, Phongsavan P, Schoeppe S, Owen N. Physical activity measurement a primer for health promotion. Promot Educ. 2006;13:92–103. doi: 10.1177/10253823060130020103.
    1. Barriera TV, Tudor-Locke C, Champagne CM, Broyles ST, Johnson WD, Katzmarzyk PT. Comparison of GT3X accelerometer and YAMAX pedometer steps/day in a free-living sample of overweight and obese adults. J Phys Act Health. 2013;10:263. doi: 10.1123/jpah.10.2.263.
    1. Kinnunen TI, Tennant PWG, McParlin C, Poston L, Robson SC, Bell R. Agreement between pedometer and accelerometer in measuring physical activity in overweight and obese pregnant women. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:501. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-501.
    1. Le Masurier GC, Lee SM, Tudor-Locke C. Motion sensor accuracy under controlled and free-living conditions. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(5):905–10. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000126777.50188.73.
    1. Harris TJ, Owen CG, Victor CR, Adams R, Ekelund U, Cook DG. A comparison of questionnaire, accelerometer, and pedometer: measures in older people. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41:1392–402. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31819b3533.
    1. Van Remoortel H, Raste Y, Louvaris Z, Giavedoni S, Burtin C, et al. Validity of six activity monitors in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a comparison with indirect calorimetry. PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e39198. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039198.
    1. Pitta F, Troosters T, Probst VS, Spruit MA, Decramer M, Gosselink R. Quantifying physical activity in daily life with questionnaires and motion sensors in COPD. Eur Respir J. 2006;27:1040–55. doi: 10.1183/09031936.06.00064105.
    1. Thorp AA, Owen N, Neuhaus M, Dunstan DW. Sedentary behaviors and subsequent health outcomes in adults a systematic review of longitudinal studies, 1996-2011. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41:207–15. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.05.004.
    1. Dyrstad SM, Hansen BH, Holme IM, Anderssen SA. Comparison of self-reported Versus accelerometer-measured physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46:99–106. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182a0595f.
    1. Troosters T, van Der Molen T, Polkey M, Rabinovich RA, Vogiatzis I, Weisman I, et al. Improving physical activity in COPD: towards a new paradigm. Resp Res. 2013;14:115. doi: 10.1186/1465-9921-14-115.
    1. Pettee-Gabriel KK, Morrow JR, Jr, Woolsey A-L T, et al. Framework for physical activity as a complex and multidimensional behavior. J Phys Act Health. 2012;Suppl 1:S11–8. doi: 10.1123/jpah.9.s1.s11.
    1. Gimeno-Santos E, Raste Y, Demeyer H, Louvaris Z, de Jong C, Rabinovich R, on behalf of the PROactive Consortium The PROactive instruments to measure physical activity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur Respir J. 2015;46:988–1000. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00183014.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe