Wear Compliance and Activity in Children Wearing Wrist- and Hip-Mounted Accelerometers.

• Autores: Stuart J. Fairclough, Alex V. Rowlands, Robert Noonan, Vincent T. Van Hees, Zoe Knowles, Lynne M. Boddy
• Localización: Medicine & Science in Sports & exercise: Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine, ISSN 0195-9131, Vol. 48, Nº. 2, 2016, págs. 245-253
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Dialnet Métricas: 2 Citas
• Resumen

  • AB Purpose: This study aimed to 1) explore children's compliance to wearing wrist- and hip-mounted accelerometers, 2) compare children's physical activity (PA) derived from raw accelerations of wrist and hip, and 3) examine differences in raw and counts PA measured by hip-worn accelerometry. Methods: One hundred and twenty-nine 9- to 10-yr-old children wore a wrist-mounted GENEActiv accelerometer (GAwrist) and a hip-mounted ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer (AGhip) for 7 d. Both devices measured raw accelerations, and the AGhip also provided count-based data. Results: More children wore the GAwrist than those from the AGhip regardless of wear time criteria applied (P < 0.001-0.035). Raw data signal vector magnitude (r = 0.68), moderate PA (MPA) (r = 0.81), vigorous PA (VPA) (r = 0.85), and moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) (r = 0.83) were strongly associated between devices (P < 0.001). GAwrist signal vector magnitude (P = 0.001), MPA (P = 0.037), VPA (P = 0.002), and MVPA (P = 0.016) were significantly greater than those from the AGhip. According to GAwrist raw data, 86.9% of children engaged in at least 60 min[middle dot]d-1 of MVPA, compared with 19% for AGhip. ActiGraph MPA (raw) was 42.00 +/- 1.61 min[middle dot]d-1 compared with 35.05 +/- 0.99 min[middle dot]d-1 (counts) (P = 0.02). ActiGraph VPA was 7.59 +/- 0.46 min[middle dot]d-1 (raw) and 37.06 +/- 1.85 min[middle dot]d-1 (counts; P = 0.19). Conclusions: In children, accelerometer wrist placement promotes superior compliance than the hip. Raw accelerations were significantly higher for GAwrist compared with those for AGhip possibly because of placement location and technical differences between devices. AGhip PA calculated from raw accelerations and counts differed substantially, demonstrating that PA outcomes derived from cut points for raw output and counts cannot be directly compared