Physical activity and sedentary behaviour in daily life: A comparative analysis of the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ) and the SenseWear armband

Physical activity and sedentary behaviour in daily life: A comparative analysis of the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ) and the SenseWear armband
复制标题

DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0177765
复制
发表时间:
2017-05-16
期刊:
影响因子:
3.7
通讯作者:
Panis, Luc Int
Panis, Luc Int
中科院分区:
综合性期刊3区
文献类型:
--
作者:
Laeremans, Michelle;Dons, Evi;Panis, Luc Int

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

减少久坐时间和增加体力活动有可能改善公众健康。然而,量化现实世界条件下的身体活动行为是一个重大挑战,并且没有良好实践的标准。我们的目的是在重复测量研究设计中比较使用自我报告仪器(全球身体活动问卷(GPAQ))和可穿戴传感器(SenseWear)获得的身体活动和久坐行为的结果。健康成年人(安特卫普 41 名、巴塞罗那 41 名、伦敦 40 名)连续 7 天佩戴 SenseWear 臂章,并在最后一天完成 GPAQ。如此重复三次。我们使用 Wilcoxon 符号秩和检验、Spearman 相关系数、混合效应回归模型和 Bland-Altman 图来研究两种方法之间的一致性。使用混合模型来评估个人特征对 GPAQ 和 SenseWear 估计值之间的绝对和相对差异的影响。 GPAQ 得出的中度至剧烈能量消耗和持续时间显着较低 (p0.59)。久坐行为的结果没有差异,但相关性很差(r
Reduction of sedentary time and an increase in physical activity offer potential to improve public health. However, quantifying physical activity behaviour under real world conditions is a major challenge and no standard of good practice is available. Our aim was to compare the results of physical activity and sedentary behaviour obtained with a self-reported instrument (Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ)) and a wearable sensor (SenseWear) in a repeated measures study design. Healthy adults (41 in Antwerp, 41 in Barcelona and 40 in London) wore the SenseWear armband for seven consecutive days and completed the GPAQ on the final day. This was repeated three times. We used the Wilcoxon signed rank sum test, Spearman correlation coefficients, mixed effects regression models and Bland-Altman plots to study agreement between both methods. Mixed models were used to assess the effect of personal characteristics on the absolute and relative difference between estimates obtained with the GPAQ and SenseWear. Moderate to vigorous energy expenditure and duration derived from the GPAQ were significantly lower (p0.59). Results for sedentary behaviour did not differ, yet were poorly correlated (r