Measuring physical activity with hip accelerometry among U.S. older adults

How many days are enough?

Masha Kocherginsky, Megan Huisingh-Scheetz, William Dale, Diane S. Lauderdale, Linda Waite

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction Accelerometers are increasingly used in research. Four to 7 days of monitoring is preferred to estimate average activity but may be burdensome for older adults. We aimed to investigate: 1) 7-day accelerometry protocol adherence, 2) demographic predictors of adherence, 3) day of the week effect, and 4) average activity calculated from 7 versus fewer days among older adults. Methods We used the 2003-2006 older adult hip accelerometry data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) sample. We determined proportions with 1-7 valid (10-20 hours) wear days and identified wear day correlates using ordinal logistic regression. We determined the day of week effect on 5 accelerometry measures (counts per minute, CPM; % sedentary behavior; % light-lifestyle activity; % moderate-vigorous activity, MVPA; total activity counts) using multivariate linear regression and compared averages estimated over 2 or 3 versus 7 days using correlations, linear regression, and Bland-Altman plots. Results Among 2,208 participants aged 65+, 85% of participants had ≥2 and 44% had 7 valid wear days. Increasing age (p = 0.01) and non-white race (p < 0.001) were associated with fewer days. Daily CPM, % MVPA, and total daily activity counts were similar Monday through Saturday, but significantly lower on Sundays (p < 0.001). Daily % sedentary behavior and % light-lifestyle activity were significantly different on Saturdays (p = 0.04-0.045) and Sundays (p < 0.001) compared to weekdays. Among participants with 7 valid days, 2 or 3 day averages were highly correlated with 7 day averages for all 5 accelerometry measures (2 versus 7 days: r = 0.90-0.93, 3 versus 7 days: r = 0.94-0.96). Conclusions Protocols of 2-3 days, adjusting for Sundays (average CPM, % moderate-vigorous activity, and average total daily activity counts) or weekends (% sedentary behavior and % light-lifestyle activity), give reliable estimates of older adult activity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere0170082
JournalPloS one
Volume12
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

accelerometry
Accelerometry
hips
physical activity
Hip
Wear of materials
Exercise
lifestyle
Life Style
Linear regression
Light
Linear Models
Nutrition
Accelerometers
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
Logistics
Nutrition Surveys
Health
demographic statistics
Monitoring

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)

Cite this

Kocherginsky, Masha ; Huisingh-Scheetz, Megan ; Dale, William ; Lauderdale, Diane S. ; Waite, Linda. / Measuring physical activity with hip accelerometry among U.S. older adults : How many days are enough?. In: PloS one. 2017 ; Vol. 12, No. 1.
@article{2234934da17b41b8922b9331497b27bd,
title = "Measuring physical activity with hip accelerometry among U.S. older adults: How many days are enough?",
abstract = "Introduction Accelerometers are increasingly used in research. Four to 7 days of monitoring is preferred to estimate average activity but may be burdensome for older adults. We aimed to investigate: 1) 7-day accelerometry protocol adherence, 2) demographic predictors of adherence, 3) day of the week effect, and 4) average activity calculated from 7 versus fewer days among older adults. Methods We used the 2003-2006 older adult hip accelerometry data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) sample. We determined proportions with 1-7 valid (10-20 hours) wear days and identified wear day correlates using ordinal logistic regression. We determined the day of week effect on 5 accelerometry measures (counts per minute, CPM; {\%} sedentary behavior; {\%} light-lifestyle activity; {\%} moderate-vigorous activity, MVPA; total activity counts) using multivariate linear regression and compared averages estimated over 2 or 3 versus 7 days using correlations, linear regression, and Bland-Altman plots. Results Among 2,208 participants aged 65+, 85{\%} of participants had ≥2 and 44{\%} had 7 valid wear days. Increasing age (p = 0.01) and non-white race (p < 0.001) were associated with fewer days. Daily CPM, {\%} MVPA, and total daily activity counts were similar Monday through Saturday, but significantly lower on Sundays (p < 0.001). Daily {\%} sedentary behavior and {\%} light-lifestyle activity were significantly different on Saturdays (p = 0.04-0.045) and Sundays (p < 0.001) compared to weekdays. Among participants with 7 valid days, 2 or 3 day averages were highly correlated with 7 day averages for all 5 accelerometry measures (2 versus 7 days: r = 0.90-0.93, 3 versus 7 days: r = 0.94-0.96). Conclusions Protocols of 2-3 days, adjusting for Sundays (average CPM, {\%} moderate-vigorous activity, and average total daily activity counts) or weekends ({\%} sedentary behavior and {\%} light-lifestyle activity), give reliable estimates of older adult activity.",
author = "Masha Kocherginsky and Megan Huisingh-Scheetz and William Dale and Lauderdale, {Diane S.} and Linda Waite",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0170082",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "1",

}

Measuring physical activity with hip accelerometry among U.S. older adults : How many days are enough? / Kocherginsky, Masha; Huisingh-Scheetz, Megan; Dale, William; Lauderdale, Diane S.; Waite, Linda.

In: PloS one, Vol. 12, No. 1, e0170082, 01.01.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Measuring physical activity with hip accelerometry among U.S. older adults

T2 - How many days are enough?

AU - Kocherginsky, Masha

AU - Huisingh-Scheetz, Megan

AU - Dale, William

AU - Lauderdale, Diane S.

AU - Waite, Linda

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Introduction Accelerometers are increasingly used in research. Four to 7 days of monitoring is preferred to estimate average activity but may be burdensome for older adults. We aimed to investigate: 1) 7-day accelerometry protocol adherence, 2) demographic predictors of adherence, 3) day of the week effect, and 4) average activity calculated from 7 versus fewer days among older adults. Methods We used the 2003-2006 older adult hip accelerometry data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) sample. We determined proportions with 1-7 valid (10-20 hours) wear days and identified wear day correlates using ordinal logistic regression. We determined the day of week effect on 5 accelerometry measures (counts per minute, CPM; % sedentary behavior; % light-lifestyle activity; % moderate-vigorous activity, MVPA; total activity counts) using multivariate linear regression and compared averages estimated over 2 or 3 versus 7 days using correlations, linear regression, and Bland-Altman plots. Results Among 2,208 participants aged 65+, 85% of participants had ≥2 and 44% had 7 valid wear days. Increasing age (p = 0.01) and non-white race (p < 0.001) were associated with fewer days. Daily CPM, % MVPA, and total daily activity counts were similar Monday through Saturday, but significantly lower on Sundays (p < 0.001). Daily % sedentary behavior and % light-lifestyle activity were significantly different on Saturdays (p = 0.04-0.045) and Sundays (p < 0.001) compared to weekdays. Among participants with 7 valid days, 2 or 3 day averages were highly correlated with 7 day averages for all 5 accelerometry measures (2 versus 7 days: r = 0.90-0.93, 3 versus 7 days: r = 0.94-0.96). Conclusions Protocols of 2-3 days, adjusting for Sundays (average CPM, % moderate-vigorous activity, and average total daily activity counts) or weekends (% sedentary behavior and % light-lifestyle activity), give reliable estimates of older adult activity.

AB - Introduction Accelerometers are increasingly used in research. Four to 7 days of monitoring is preferred to estimate average activity but may be burdensome for older adults. We aimed to investigate: 1) 7-day accelerometry protocol adherence, 2) demographic predictors of adherence, 3) day of the week effect, and 4) average activity calculated from 7 versus fewer days among older adults. Methods We used the 2003-2006 older adult hip accelerometry data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) sample. We determined proportions with 1-7 valid (10-20 hours) wear days and identified wear day correlates using ordinal logistic regression. We determined the day of week effect on 5 accelerometry measures (counts per minute, CPM; % sedentary behavior; % light-lifestyle activity; % moderate-vigorous activity, MVPA; total activity counts) using multivariate linear regression and compared averages estimated over 2 or 3 versus 7 days using correlations, linear regression, and Bland-Altman plots. Results Among 2,208 participants aged 65+, 85% of participants had ≥2 and 44% had 7 valid wear days. Increasing age (p = 0.01) and non-white race (p < 0.001) were associated with fewer days. Daily CPM, % MVPA, and total daily activity counts were similar Monday through Saturday, but significantly lower on Sundays (p < 0.001). Daily % sedentary behavior and % light-lifestyle activity were significantly different on Saturdays (p = 0.04-0.045) and Sundays (p < 0.001) compared to weekdays. Among participants with 7 valid days, 2 or 3 day averages were highly correlated with 7 day averages for all 5 accelerometry measures (2 versus 7 days: r = 0.90-0.93, 3 versus 7 days: r = 0.94-0.96). Conclusions Protocols of 2-3 days, adjusting for Sundays (average CPM, % moderate-vigorous activity, and average total daily activity counts) or weekends (% sedentary behavior and % light-lifestyle activity), give reliable estimates of older adult activity.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85009517345&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85009517345&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0170082

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0170082

M3 - Article

VL - 12

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 1

M1 - e0170082

ER -