Which activity monitor to use? Validity, reproducibility and user friendliness of three activity monitors

Abstract

BackgroundHealth is associated with amount of daily physical activity. Recently, the identification of sedentary time as an independent factor, has gained interest. A valid and easy to use activity monitor is needed to objectively investigate the relationship between physical activity, sedentary time and health. We compared validity and reproducibility of physical activity measurement and posture identification of three activity monitors, as well as user friendliness.MethodsHealthy volunteers wore three activity monitors simultaneously: ActivPAL3, ActiGraphGT3X and CAM. Data were acquired under both controlled (n = 5) and free-living conditions (n = 9). The controlled laboratory measurement, that included standardized walking intensity and posture allocation, was performed twice. User friendliness was evaluated with a questionnaire. Posture classification was compared with direct observation (controlled measurement) and with diaries (free living). Accelerometer intensity accuracy was tested by correlations with walking speed. User friendliness was compared between activity monitors.ResultsReproducibility was at least substantial in all monitors. The difference between the two CAM measurements increased with walking intensity. Amount of correct posture classification by ActivPAL3 was 100.0% (kappa 0.98), 33.9% by ActiGraphGT3X (kappa 0.29) and 100.0% by CAM (kappa 0.99). Correlations between accelerometer intensity and walking speed were 0.98 for ActivPAL3, 1.00 for ActiGraphGT3X and 0.98 for CAM. ICCs between activity monitors and diary were 0.98 in ActivPAL3, 0.59 and 0.96 in ActiGraphGT3X and 0.98 in CAM. ActivPAL3 and ActiGraphGT3X had higher user friendliness scores than the CAM.ConclusionsThe ActivPAL3 is valid, reproducible and user friendly. The posture classification by the ActiGraphGT3X is not valid, but reflection of walking intensity and user friendliness are good. The CAM is valid; however, reproducibility at higher walking intensity and user friendliness might cause problems. Further validity studies in free living are recommended.

The feasibility of early pulmonary rehabilitation and activity after COPD exacerbations: external pilot randomised controlled trial, qualitative case study and exploratory economic evaluation

“…Although acceptance of the monitors was high, the total data recording times were insufficient in many patients to obtain meaningful results. The reasons for this require further exploration; although this may be a useful secondary outcome, 168,[184][185][186] it is difficult to recommend this marker as a primary outcome.…”

Breaking sitting with light activities vs structured exercise: a randomised crossover study demonstrating benefits for glycaemic control and insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetes

“…As the activPAL data from day 1 did not cover the entire day, only activPAL data from the last 72 h of each regimen were analysed. This accelerometer accurately discriminates between time spent inactive (sitting or lying), standing and walking [19], giving step number and cadence [20]. Diary data for self-reported physical activity were compared with the activPAL data after the first and third days of each activity regimen to formulate tailor-made instructions on how to alter daily activities in order to guarantee optimal compliance with each activity regimen.…”

Niveau d’activité physique et contrôle ambulatoire de l’hypertension artérielle. Résultats de l’étude pilote « Acti-HTA »

“…Chez 53 sujets irlandais nouvellement diagnostiqués pour leur HTA, une relation inverse entre la rigidité aortique (vitesse de l'onde de pouls et Aix) et le niveau d'AP par accéléromètre a été retrouvée [23]. Mais le dispositif d'accélérométrie le plus adapté reste à définir [24].…”