Accelerometer use in a physical activity intervention trial

Melissa A. Napolitano, Kelley E. Borradaile, Beth A. Lewis, Jessica A. Whiteley, Jaime L. Longval, Alfred F. Parisi, Anna E. Albrecht, Christopher N. Sciamanna, John M. Jakicic, George D. Papandonatos, Bess H. Marcus

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper describes the application of best practice recommendations for using accelerometers in a physical activity (PA) intervention trial, and the concordance of different methods for measuring PA. A subsample (n=63; 26%) of the 239 healthy, sedentary adults participating in a PA trial (mean age=47.5; 82% women) wore the ActiGraph monitor at all 3 assessment time points. ActiGraph data were compared with self-report (i.e., PA weekly recall and monthly log) and fitness variables. Correlations between the PA recall and ActiGraph for moderate intensity activity ranged from 0.16-0.48 and from 0.28-0.42 for vigorous intensity activity. ActiGraph and fitness [estimated VO2(ml/kg/min)] had correlations of 0.15-0.45. The ActiGraph and weekly self-report were significantly correlated at all time points (correlations ranged from 0.23 to 0.44). In terms of detecting intervention effects, intervention groups recorded more minutes of at least moderate-intensity PA on the ActiGraph than the control group at 6months (min=46.47, 95% CI=14.36-78.58), but not at 12months. Limitations of the study include a small sample size and only 3days of ActiGraph monitoring. To obtain optimal results with accelerometers in clinical trials, the authors recommend following best practice recommendations: detailed protocols for monitor use, calibration of monitors and validation of data quality, and use of validated equations for analysis. The ActiGraph has modest concordance with other assessment tools and is sensitive to change over time. However, until more information validating the use of accelerometry in clinical trials becomes available, properly administered self-report measures of PA should remain part of the assessment battery.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)514-523
Number of pages10
JournalContemporary Clinical Trials
Volume31
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2010

Fingerprint

Exercise
Self Report
Practice Guidelines
Clinical Trials
Accelerometry
Sample Size
Calibration
Control Groups

Keywords

  • ActiGraph
  • Best practice recommendations
  • Exercise
  • Objective monitoring

Cite this

Napolitano, M. A., Borradaile, K. E., Lewis, B. A., Whiteley, J. A., Longval, J. L., Parisi, A. F., ... Marcus, B. H. (2010). Accelerometer use in a physical activity intervention trial. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 31(6), 514-523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2010.08.004

Accelerometer use in a physical activity intervention trial. / Napolitano, Melissa A.; Borradaile, Kelley E.; Lewis, Beth A.; Whiteley, Jessica A.; Longval, Jaime L.; Parisi, Alfred F.; Albrecht, Anna E.; Sciamanna, Christopher N.; Jakicic, John M.; Papandonatos, George D.; Marcus, Bess H.

In: Contemporary Clinical Trials, Vol. 31, No. 6, 01.11.2010, p. 514-523.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Napolitano, MA, Borradaile, KE, Lewis, BA, Whiteley, JA, Longval, JL, Parisi, AF, Albrecht, AE, Sciamanna, CN, Jakicic, JM, Papandonatos, GD & Marcus, BH 2010, 'Accelerometer use in a physical activity intervention trial', Contemporary Clinical Trials, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 514-523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2010.08.004
Napolitano MA, Borradaile KE, Lewis BA, Whiteley JA, Longval JL, Parisi AF et al. Accelerometer use in a physical activity intervention trial. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2010 Nov 1;31(6):514-523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2010.08.004
Napolitano, Melissa A. ; Borradaile, Kelley E. ; Lewis, Beth A. ; Whiteley, Jessica A. ; Longval, Jaime L. ; Parisi, Alfred F. ; Albrecht, Anna E. ; Sciamanna, Christopher N. ; Jakicic, John M. ; Papandonatos, George D. ; Marcus, Bess H. / Accelerometer use in a physical activity intervention trial. In: Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2010 ; Vol. 31, No. 6. pp. 514-523.
@article{e46ef6dc51a645d7935a604a36d9f257,
title = "Accelerometer use in a physical activity intervention trial",
abstract = "This paper describes the application of best practice recommendations for using accelerometers in a physical activity (PA) intervention trial, and the concordance of different methods for measuring PA. A subsample (n=63; 26{\%}) of the 239 healthy, sedentary adults participating in a PA trial (mean age=47.5; 82{\%} women) wore the ActiGraph monitor at all 3 assessment time points. ActiGraph data were compared with self-report (i.e., PA weekly recall and monthly log) and fitness variables. Correlations between the PA recall and ActiGraph for moderate intensity activity ranged from 0.16-0.48 and from 0.28-0.42 for vigorous intensity activity. ActiGraph and fitness [estimated VO2(ml/kg/min)] had correlations of 0.15-0.45. The ActiGraph and weekly self-report were significantly correlated at all time points (correlations ranged from 0.23 to 0.44). In terms of detecting intervention effects, intervention groups recorded more minutes of at least moderate-intensity PA on the ActiGraph than the control group at 6months (min=46.47, 95{\%} CI=14.36-78.58), but not at 12months. Limitations of the study include a small sample size and only 3days of ActiGraph monitoring. To obtain optimal results with accelerometers in clinical trials, the authors recommend following best practice recommendations: detailed protocols for monitor use, calibration of monitors and validation of data quality, and use of validated equations for analysis. The ActiGraph has modest concordance with other assessment tools and is sensitive to change over time. However, until more information validating the use of accelerometry in clinical trials becomes available, properly administered self-report measures of PA should remain part of the assessment battery.",
keywords = "ActiGraph, Best practice recommendations, Exercise, Objective monitoring",
author = "Napolitano, {Melissa A.} and Borradaile, {Kelley E.} and Lewis, {Beth A.} and Whiteley, {Jessica A.} and Longval, {Jaime L.} and Parisi, {Alfred F.} and Albrecht, {Anna E.} and Sciamanna, {Christopher N.} and Jakicic, {John M.} and Papandonatos, {George D.} and Marcus, {Bess H.}",
year = "2010",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cct.2010.08.004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "514--523",
journal = "Contemporary Clinical Trials",
issn = "1551-7144",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accelerometer use in a physical activity intervention trial

AU - Napolitano, Melissa A.

AU - Borradaile, Kelley E.

AU - Lewis, Beth A.

AU - Whiteley, Jessica A.

AU - Longval, Jaime L.

AU - Parisi, Alfred F.

AU - Albrecht, Anna E.

AU - Sciamanna, Christopher N.

AU - Jakicic, John M.

AU - Papandonatos, George D.

AU - Marcus, Bess H.

PY - 2010/11/1

Y1 - 2010/11/1

N2 - This paper describes the application of best practice recommendations for using accelerometers in a physical activity (PA) intervention trial, and the concordance of different methods for measuring PA. A subsample (n=63; 26%) of the 239 healthy, sedentary adults participating in a PA trial (mean age=47.5; 82% women) wore the ActiGraph monitor at all 3 assessment time points. ActiGraph data were compared with self-report (i.e., PA weekly recall and monthly log) and fitness variables. Correlations between the PA recall and ActiGraph for moderate intensity activity ranged from 0.16-0.48 and from 0.28-0.42 for vigorous intensity activity. ActiGraph and fitness [estimated VO2(ml/kg/min)] had correlations of 0.15-0.45. The ActiGraph and weekly self-report were significantly correlated at all time points (correlations ranged from 0.23 to 0.44). In terms of detecting intervention effects, intervention groups recorded more minutes of at least moderate-intensity PA on the ActiGraph than the control group at 6months (min=46.47, 95% CI=14.36-78.58), but not at 12months. Limitations of the study include a small sample size and only 3days of ActiGraph monitoring. To obtain optimal results with accelerometers in clinical trials, the authors recommend following best practice recommendations: detailed protocols for monitor use, calibration of monitors and validation of data quality, and use of validated equations for analysis. The ActiGraph has modest concordance with other assessment tools and is sensitive to change over time. However, until more information validating the use of accelerometry in clinical trials becomes available, properly administered self-report measures of PA should remain part of the assessment battery.

AB - This paper describes the application of best practice recommendations for using accelerometers in a physical activity (PA) intervention trial, and the concordance of different methods for measuring PA. A subsample (n=63; 26%) of the 239 healthy, sedentary adults participating in a PA trial (mean age=47.5; 82% women) wore the ActiGraph monitor at all 3 assessment time points. ActiGraph data were compared with self-report (i.e., PA weekly recall and monthly log) and fitness variables. Correlations between the PA recall and ActiGraph for moderate intensity activity ranged from 0.16-0.48 and from 0.28-0.42 for vigorous intensity activity. ActiGraph and fitness [estimated VO2(ml/kg/min)] had correlations of 0.15-0.45. The ActiGraph and weekly self-report were significantly correlated at all time points (correlations ranged from 0.23 to 0.44). In terms of detecting intervention effects, intervention groups recorded more minutes of at least moderate-intensity PA on the ActiGraph than the control group at 6months (min=46.47, 95% CI=14.36-78.58), but not at 12months. Limitations of the study include a small sample size and only 3days of ActiGraph monitoring. To obtain optimal results with accelerometers in clinical trials, the authors recommend following best practice recommendations: detailed protocols for monitor use, calibration of monitors and validation of data quality, and use of validated equations for analysis. The ActiGraph has modest concordance with other assessment tools and is sensitive to change over time. However, until more information validating the use of accelerometry in clinical trials becomes available, properly administered self-report measures of PA should remain part of the assessment battery.

KW - ActiGraph

KW - Best practice recommendations

KW - Exercise

KW - Objective monitoring

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77957963065&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77957963065&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cct.2010.08.004

DO - 10.1016/j.cct.2010.08.004

M3 - Article

C2 - 20723619

AN - SCOPUS:77957963065

VL - 31

SP - 514

EP - 523

JO - Contemporary Clinical Trials

JF - Contemporary Clinical Trials

SN - 1551-7144

IS - 6

ER -