Accelerometer-based measures in physical activity surveillance: current practices and issues

Abstract

Accelerometer data collected in PA surveillance systems may not provide estimates that are generalisable to the target population. Accelerometer-based estimates have adequate reliability for PA surveillance, but there are still several issues associated with their validity. Accelerometer-based prevalence estimates are largely dependent on the investigators' choice of intensity cut-off points. Maintaining standardised accelerometer data collections in long-term PA surveillance systems is difficult, which may cause discontinuity in time-trend data. The use of accelerometers does not necessarily produce useful between-study and international comparisons due to lack of standardisation of data collection and processing methods. To conclude, it appears that accelerometers still have limitations regarding generalisability, validity, comprehensiveness, simplicity, affordability, adaptability, between-study comparability and sustainability. Therefore, given the current evidence, it seems that the widespread adoption of accelerometers specifically for large-scale PA surveillance systems may be premature.

The Influence of Head Impact Threshold for Reporting Data in Contact and Collision Sports: Systematic Review and Original Data Analysis

“…21,116 Accelerometers have been utilised to record physical activity and there have been some inter-study and international comparability limitations. 86 These identified limitations may be identical to areas now being faced by studies reporting the biomechanics of impacts to the head. To date, there is an increasing number of studies reporting head impact biomechanics, and this will increase further as more systems become available.…”

“…53 The issues identified with the use of accelerometers for physical activity may be similar for head impact biomechanics. It was identified 86 that these limitations were (a) Affordability of the accelerometers: 86 the associated costs with the purchase of these instruments may limit the use of these to researchers, and research facilities, that can afford to provide the funding for this sort of research activity; (b) Administration burden 86 to the researcher(s) and participants and post data collection analysis; (c) Choice of accelerator brand, 85 59 dealing with spurious data 37 and the reintegration of smaller epochs into larger epochs. 50 In addition to the limitations identified, there is always the issue of constant technological developments, emerging methodological questions and a lack of academic consensus that may also hinder the development of uniformity in the utilisation of accelerometers 86 for recording head impact biomechanics.…”

“…Currently the use of accelerometers may not necessarily provide the meaningful inter-study comparisons that are sought due to data collection, processing and methodologies not being standardized. 86 Studies utilising different impact thresholds have proposed varying conclusions based on the methodological and reporting approaches undertaken. Therefore the aim of this study was to outline the influence of head impact thresholds used in reporting head impact data in contact and collision sport, using examples for impact data obtained from senior amateur rugby union during matches in New Zealand.…”

Objectively Recorded Physical Activity And Perceived Distress At The Beginning Of Oncological Treatment

“…Still, wearing an activity monitor might motivate some patients to increase their activity level resulting in changed habitual physical activity behavior during the period when data was collected. On the other side, some patients might not wear the activity monitor, resulting in underestimations of actual physical activity [36] .…”

Measuring Children's Physical Activity

“…However, the reliability of the measurement is affected by both the attachment method and placement of the accelerometer(s) (20). To reflect real-life behavior and to diminish the effects of day-to-day variation, high-quality measurements require high wear compliance, in terms of many hours of wear time per day and a sufficient number of included days (1,11).…”