Validation of Wearable Monitors for Assessing Sedentary Behavior
Validation of Wearable Monitors for Assessing Sedentary Behavior
复制标题
DOI：
10.1249/mss.0b013e31820ce174
复制
发表时间：
2011-08-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Freedson, Patty S.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kozey-Keadle, Sarah;Libertine, Amanda;Freedson, Patty S.
KOZEY-KEADLE, S.、A. LIBERTINE、K. LYDEN、J. STAUDENMAYER 和 P. S. FREEDSON。用于评估久坐行为的可穿戴监视器的验证。医学。科学。体育锻炼，卷。 43，第 8 期，第 1561-1567 页，2011 年。目的：阐明久坐行为 (SB) 与健康结果之间关系的主要障碍是缺乏有效的监测器来评估自由生活环境中的 SB。本研究的目的是检验市售监测仪评估 SB 的有效性。方法：对 20 名超重（平均值 +/- SD：体重指数 = 33.7 +/- 5.7 kg.m(-2)）、年龄为 46.5 +/- 10.7 岁、不活动的办公室工作人员进行直接观察，为期两个 6 小时，同时佩戴 activPAL (AP) 和 ActiGraph GT3X (AG)。在第二次观察期间，参与者被要求减少坐着的时间。我们评估了常用的每分钟 100 次计数 (AG100) 切点和用于定义 SB 的其他几个 AG 切点的有效性。我们使用带有持续时间编码的焦点采样的直接观察（DO）来记录久坐（坐/躺）或非久坐行为。使用混合模型重复测量分析评估了监测仪的准确性和精密度以及监测仪检测坐时间减少的灵敏度。结果：平均而言，AP 和 AG100 分别低估了坐姿时间 2.8% 和 4.9%。 AP 和 DO 之间的相关性为 R-2 = 0.94，AG100 和 DO 静坐分钟数为 R-2 = 0.39。只有美联社能够检测到坐着时间的减少。 AG 每分钟 150 次计数阈值显示了 AG 切点的最低偏差 (1.8%)。结论：AP 比 AG 更精确，并且对坐姿时间的减少更敏感，因此，旨在评估 SB 的研究应考虑使用 AP。当使用 AG 监视器时，每分钟 150 次计数可能是定义 SB 的最合适的切点。
KOZEY-KEADLE, S., A. LIBERTINE, K. LYDEN, J. STAUDENMAYER, and P. S. FREEDSON. Validation of Wearable Monitors for Assessing Sedentary Behavior. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 43, No. 8, pp. 1561-1567, 2011. Purpose: A primary barrier to elucidating the association between sedentary behavior (SB) and health outcomes is the lack of valid monitors to assess SB in a free-living environment. The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of commercially available monitors to assess SB. Methods: Twenty overweight (mean +/- SD: body mass index = 33.7 +/- 5.7 kg.m(-2)) inactive, office workers age 46.5 +/- 10.7 yr were directly observed for two 6-h periods while wearing an activPAL (AP) and an ActiGraph GT3X (AG). During the second observation, participants were instructed to reduce sitting time. We assessed the validity of the commonly used cut point of 100 counts per minute (AG100) and several additional AG cut points for defining SB. We used direct observation (DO) using focal sampling with duration coding to record either sedentary (sitting/lying) or nonsedentary behavior. The accuracy and precision of the monitors and the sensitivity of the monitors to detect reductions in sitting time were assessed using mixed-model repeated-measures analyses. Results: On average, the AP and the AG100 underestimated sitting time by 2.8% and 4.9%, respectively. The correlation between the AP and DO was R-2 = 0.94, and the AG100 and DO sedentary minutes was R-2 = 0.39. Only the AP was able to detect reductions in sitting time. The AG 150-counts-per-minute threshold demonstrated the lowest bias (1.8%) of the AG cut points. Conclusions: The AP was more precise and more sensitive to reductions in sitting time than the AG, and thus, studies designed to assess SB should consider using the AP. When the AG monitor is used, 150 counts per minute may be the most appropriate cut point to define SB.