Generation and validation of ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer cut-points for assessing physical activity intensity in older adults. The OUTDOOR ACTIVE validation study

Karin Bammann, Nicola K Thomson, Birte Marie Albrecht, Duncan S Buchan, Chris Easton, Karin Bammann, Nicola K Thomson, Birte Marie Albrecht, Duncan S Buchan, Chris Easton

Abstract

The study of physical activity in older adults is becoming more and more relevant. For evaluation of physical activity recommendations, intensity-specific accelerometer cut-points are utilized. However, research on accelerometer cut-points for older adults is still scarce. The aim of the study was to generate placement-specific cut-points of ActiGraph GT3X+ activity counts and raw measures of acceleration to determine physical activity intensity in older adults. A further aim was to compare the validity of the generated cut-points for a range of different physical activities. The study was a single experimental trial using a convenience sample. Study participants were 20 adults aged 59 to 73 years. Accelerometers were worn at six different placements (one on each wrist, one on each ankle, and two at the hip) and breath-by-breath indirect calorimetry was used as the reference for energy. The experiment comprised of two parts; a) The first required participants to walk on a treadmill at incremental speeds (3.0-5.0 km·h-1), and b) Five different everyday activities (reading, cleaning, shopping, cycling, aerobics) were staged in the laboratory setting. Accelerometer cut-points (activity counts, raw data) were derived for each of the investigated placements by linear regression using the treadmill part. Performance of the cut-points was assessed by applying the cut-points to the everyday activities. We provide cut-points for six placements and two accelerometer metrics in the specific age group. However, the derived cut-points did not outperform published ones. More research and innovative approaches are needed for improving internal and external validity of research results across populations and age groups.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

    1. Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, Guthold R, Haskell W, Ekelund U. Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):247–57. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60646-1
    1. Holme I, Anderssen SA. Increases in physical activity is as important as smoking cessation for reduction in total mortality in elderly men: 12 years of follow-up of the Oslo II study. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(11):743–8. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2014-094522
    1. Kohl HW 3rd, Craig CL, Lambert EV, Inoue S Alkandari JR, Leetongin G, et al.. The pandemic of physical inactivity: global action for public health. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):294–305. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60898-8
    1. Global recommendations on physical activity for health. World Health Organization; 2010.
    1. Knowles AM, Herbert P, Easton C, Sculthorpe N, Grace FM. Impact of low-volume, high-intensity interval training on maximal aerobic capacity, health-related quality of life and motivation to exercise in ageing men. Age (Dordr). 2015;37(2):25. doi: 10.1007/s11357-015-9763-3
    1. Hills AP, Mokhtar N, Byrne NM. Assessment of physical activity and energy expenditure: an overview of objective measures. Front Nutr. 2014;1:5. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2014.00005
    1. Westerterp KR. Doubly labelled water assessment of energy expenditure: principle, practice, and promise. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2017;117(7):1277–85. doi: 10.1007/s00421-017-3641-x
    1. Kenny GP, Notley SR, Gagnon D. Direct calorimetry: a brief historical review of its use in the study of human metabolism and thermoregulation. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2017;117(9):1765–85. doi: 10.1007/s00421-017-3670-5
    1. McMinn D, Acharya R, Rowe DA, Gray SR, Allan JL. Measuring activity energy expenditure: accuracy of the GT3X+ and actiheart monitors. Int J Exerc Sci. 2013;6(3):5.
    1. van Hees VT, Gorzelniak L, Dean León EC, Eder M, Pias M, Taherian S, et al.. Separating movement and gravity components in an acceleration signal and implications for the assessment of human daily physical activity. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e61691. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061691
    1. Crouter SE, Churilla JR, Bassett DR Jr. Estimating energy expenditure using accelerometers. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006;98(6):601–12. doi: 10.1007/s00421-006-0307-5
    1. Santos-Lozano A, Santín-Medeiros F, Cardon G, Torres-Luque G, Bailón R, Bergmeir C, et al.. Actigraph GT3X: validation and determination of physical activity intensity cut points. Int J Sports Med. 2013;34(11):975–82. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1337945
    1. Rhudy MB, Dreisbach SB, Moran MD, Ruggiero MJ, Veerabhadrappa P. Cut points of the Actigraph GT9X for moderate and vigorous intensity physical activity at four different wear locations. J Sports Sci. 2020;38(5):503–10. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2019.1707956
    1. Freedson PS, Melanson E, Sirard J. Calibration of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30(5):777–81. doi: 10.1097/00005768-199805000-00021
    1. Knaggs JD, Larkin KA, Manini TM. Metabolic cost of daily activities and effect of mobility impairment in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(11):2118–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03655.x
    1. Osoba MY, Rao AK, Agrawal SK, Lalwani AK. Balance and gait in the elderly: A contemporary review. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2019;4(1):143–53. doi: 10.1002/lio2.252
    1. Copeland JL, Esliger DW. Accelerometer assessment of physical activity in active, healthy older adults. J Aging Phys Act. 2009;17(1):17–30. doi: 10.1123/japa.17.1.17
    1. Cleland CL, Ferguson S, McCrorie P, Schipperijn J, Ellis G, Hunter RF. Considerations in Processing Accelerometry Data to Explore Physical Activity and Sedentary Time in Older Adults. J Aging Phys Act. 2020:1–11. doi: 10.1123/japa.2019-0244
    1. Kim DY, Jung YS, Park RW, Joo NS. Different location of triaxial accelerometer and different energy expenditures. Yonsei Med J. 2014;55(4):1145–51. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2014.55.4.1145
    1. Rhudy MB, Mahoney JM. A comprehensive comparison of simple step counting techniques using wrist- and ankle-mounted accelerometer and gyroscope signals. J Med Eng Technol. 2018;42(3):236–43. doi: 10.1080/03091902.2018.1470692
    1. Hildebrand M, VANH VT, Hansen BH, Ekelund U. Age group comparability of raw accelerometer output from wrist- and hip-worn monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46(9):1816–24. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000289
    1. Fairclough SJ, Noonan R, Rowlands AV, Van Hees V, Knowles Z, Boddy LM. Wear Compliance and Activity in Children Wearing Wrist- and Hip-Mounted Accelerometers. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016;48(2):245–53. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000771
    1. Doherty A, Jackson D, Hammerla N, Plötz T, Olivier P, Granat MH, et al.. Large Scale Population Assessment of Physical Activity Using Wrist Worn Accelerometers: The UK Biobank Study. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0169649. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169649
    1. Forberger S, Bammann K, Bauer J, Boll S, Bolte G, Brand T, et al.. How to Tackle Key Challenges in the Promotion of Physical Activity among Older Adults (65+): The AEQUIPA Network Approach. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(4):379. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14040379
    1. Bammann K, Drell C, Lübs LL, Stalling I. Cluster-randomised trial on participatory community-based outdoor physical activity promotion programs in adults aged 65–75 years in Germany: protocol of the OUTDOOR ACTIVE intervention trial. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1197. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-6124-z
    1. Jones AM, Doust JH. A 1% treadmill grade most accurately reflects the energetic cost of outdoor running. J Sports Sci. 1996;14(4):321–7. doi: 10.1080/02640419608727717
    1. Migueles JH, Rowlands AV, Huber F, Sabia S, van Hees VT. GGIR: A Research Community–Driven Open Source R Package for Generating Physical Activity and Sleep Outcomes From Multi-Day Raw Accelerometer Data. J Meas Phys Behav. 2019;2(3):188.
    1. Rowlands AV, Mirkes EM, Yates T, Clemes S, Davies M, Khunti K, et al.. Accelerometer-assessed Physical Activity in Epidemiology: Are Monitors Equivalent? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018;50(2):257–65. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001435
    1. Buchan DS, Boddy LM, McLellan G. Comparison of Free-Living and Laboratory Activity Outcomes from ActiGraph Accelerometers Worn on the Dominant and Non-Dominant Wrists. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2020;24(4):247–57.
    1. Crouter SE, Horton M, Bassett DR Jr. Validity of ActiGraph child-specific equations during various physical activities. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(7):1403–9. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318285f03b
    1. Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Whitt MC, Irwin ML, Swartz AM, Strath SJ, et al.. Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(9 Suppl):S498–504. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200009001-00009
    1. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420–8. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.86.2.420
    1. Barnett A, van den Hoek D, Barnett D, Cerin E. Measuring moderate-intensity walking in older adults using the ActiGraph accelerometer. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16(1):211. doi: 10.1186/s12877-016-0380-5
    1. Sasaki JE, John D, Freedson PS. Validation and comparison of ActiGraph activity monitors. J Sci Med Sport. 2011;14(5):411–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2011.04.003
    1. Montoye AHK, Clevenger KA, Pfeiffer KA, Nelson MB, Bock JM, Imboden MT, et al.. Development of cut-points for determining activity intensity from a wrist-worn ActiGraph accelerometer in free-living adults. J Sports Sci. 2020;38(22):2569–78. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2020.1794244
    1. Migueles JH, Cadenas-Sanchez C, Rowlands AV, Henriksson P, Shiroma EJ, Acosta FM, et al.. Comparability of accelerometer signal aggregation metrics across placements and dominant wrist cut points for the assessment of physical activity in adults. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):18235. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-54267-y
    1. Rowlands AV, Edwardson CL, Davies MJ, Khunti K, Harrington DM, Yates T. Beyond Cut Points: Accelerometer Metrics that Capture the Physical Activity Profile. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018;50(6):1323–32. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001561
    1. Rowlands AV. Moving Forward With Accelerometer-Assessed Physical Activity: Two Strategies to Ensure Meaningful, Interpretable, and Comparable Measures. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2018;30(4):450–6. doi: 10.1123/pes.2018-0201
    1. Migueles JH, Aadland E, Andersen LB, Brønd JC, Chastin SF, Hansen BH, et al.. GRANADA consensus on analytical approaches to assess associations with accelerometer-determined physical behaviours (physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep) in epidemiological studies. Br J Sports Med. 2021.
    1. Buchan DS, McSeveney F, McLellan G. A comparison of physical activity from Actigraph GT3X+ accelerometers worn on the dominant and non-dominant wrist. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2019;39(1):51–6. doi: 10.1111/cpf.12538
    1. Dieu O, Mikulovic J, Fardy PS, Bui-Xuan G, Béghin L, Vanhelst J. Physical activity using wrist-worn accelerometers: comparison of dominant and non-dominant wrist. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2017;37(5):525–9. doi: 10.1111/cpf.12337
    1. Straczkiewicz M, Glynn NW, Harezlak J. On Placement, Location and Orientation of Wrist-Worn Tri-Axial Accelerometers during Free-Living Measurements. Sensors (Basel). 2019;19(9). doi: 10.3390/s19092095
    1. Howe CC, Moir HJ, Easton C. Classification of physical activity cut-points and the estimation of energy expenditure during walking using the GT3X+ accelerometer in overweight and obese adults. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2017;21(3):127–33.
    1. Hall KS, Howe CA, Rana SR, Martin CL, Morey MC. METs and accelerometry of walking in older adults: standard versus measured energy cost. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(3):574–82. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318276c73c
    1. Strath SJ, Pfeiffer KA, Whitt-Glover MC. Accelerometer use with children, older adults, and adults with functional limitations. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(1 Suppl 1):S77–85.
    1. Evenson KR, Buchner DM, Morland KB. Objective measurement of physical activity and sedentary behavior among US adults aged 60 years or older. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9:E26.
    1. Gil-Rey E, Maldonado-Martín S, Gorostiaga EM. Individualized Accelerometer Activity Cut-Points for the Measurement of Relative Physical Activity Intensity Levels. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2019;90(3):327–35. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2019.1599801
    1. Bammann K, Recke C, Albrecht BM, Stalling I, Doerwald F. Promoting Physical Activity Among Older Adults Using Community-Based Participatory Research With an Adapted PRECEDE-PROCEED Model Approach: The AEQUIPA/OUTDOOR ACTIVE Project. Am J Health Promot. 2020:890117120974876. doi: 10.1177/0890117120974876
    1. Stalling I, Albrecht BM, Doerwald F, Bammann K. Time allocation to active domains, physical activity, and health indicators in older adults: cross-sectional results from the OUTDOOR ACTIVE study. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1580. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09708-z

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel