BACKGROUND: Hospital stays are associated with high levels of sedentary behavior and physical inactivity. To objectively investigate physical behavior of hospitalized patients, these is a need for valid measurement instruments. The aim of this study was to assess the criterion validity of three accelerometers to measure lying, sitting, standing and walking. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was performed in a university hospital. Participants carried out several mobility tasks according to a structured protocol while wearing three accelerometers (ActiGraph GT9X Link, Activ8 Professional and Dynaport MoveMonitor). The participants were guided through the protocol by a test leader and were recorded on video to serve as reference. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were determined for the categories lying, sitting, standing and walking. RESULTS: In total 12 subjects were included with a mean age of 49.5 (SD 21.5) years and a mean body mass index of 23.8 kg/m2 (SD 2.4). The ActiGraph GT9X Link showed an excellent sensitivity (90%) and PPV (98%) for walking, but a poor sensitivity for sitting and standing (57% and 53%), and a poor PPV (43%) for sitting. The Activ8 Professional showed an excellent sensitivity for sitting and walking (95% and 93%), excellent PPV (98%) for walking, but no sensitivity (0%) and PPV (0%) for lying. The Dynaport MoveMonitor showed an excellent sensitivity for sitting (94%), excellent PPV for lying and walking (100% and 99%), but a poor sensitivity (13%) and PPV (19%) for standing. CONCLUSIONS: The validity outcomes for the categories lying, sitting, standing and walking vary between the investigated accelerometers. All three accelerometers scored good to excellent in identifying walking. None of the accelerometers were able to identify all categories validly.
Stroke is the second most common cause of death and the third leading cause of disability worldwide,1,2 with the burden expected to increase during the next 20 years.1 Almost 40% of the people with stroke have a recurrent stroke within 10 years,3 making secondary prevention vital.3,4 High amounts of sedentary time have been found to increase the risk of cardiovascular disease,5–11 particularly when the sedentary time is accumulated in prolonged bouts.12–15 Sedentary behavior, is defined as “any waking behavior characterized by an energy expenditure ≤1.5 Metabolic Equivalent of Task (METs) while in a sitting, reclining or lying posture”.16,17 Studies in healthy people, as well as people with diabetes and obesity, have shown that reducing the total amount of sedentary time and/or breaking up long periods of uninterrupted sedentary time, reduces metabolic risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease.6,9,10,12–15 Recent studies have shown that people living in the community after stroke spend more time each day sedentary, and more time in uninterrupted bouts of sedentary time compared to age-matched healthy peers.18–20 Reducing sedentary time and breaking up long sedentary bouts with short bursts of activity may be a promising intervention to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke and other cardiovascular diseases in people with stroke. To develop effective interventions, it is important to understand the factors associated with sedentary time in people with stroke. Previous studies have found associations between self-reported physical function after stroke and total sedentary time, but inconsistent results with regards to the relationship of age, stroke severity, and walking speed with sedentary time.20,21 These results are from secondary analyses of single-site observational studies, not powered to address associations, and inconsistent in the methods used to determine waking hours; thus making direct comparisons between studies difficult.20,21 Individual participant data pooling, with consistent processing of wake time data, allows novel exploratory analyses of larger datasets with greater power. By pooling all available individual participant data internationally, this study aimed to comprehensively explore the factors associated with sedentary time in community-dwelling people with stroke. Specifically, our research questions were: (1) What factors are associated with total sedentary time during waking hours after stroke? (2) What factors are associated with time spent in prolonged sedentary bouts during waking hours?
Background: Recently, research focus has shifted to the combination of all 24-h movement behaviors (physical activity, sedentary behavior and sleep) instead of each behavior separately. Yet, no reliable and valid proxy-report tools exist to assess all these behaviors in 0–4-year-old children. By involving end-users (parents) and key stakeholders (researchers, professionals working with young children), this mixed-methods study aimed to 1) develop a mobile application (app)-based proxy-report tool to assess 24-h movement behaviors in 0–4-year-olds, and 2) examine its content validity. Methods: First, we used concept mapping to identify activities 0–4-year-olds engage in. Parents (n = 58) and professionals working with young children (n = 21) generated a list of activities, sorted related activities, and rated the frequency children perform these activities. Second, using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis, we created activity categories based on the sorted activities of the participants. Third, we developed the My Little Moves app in collaboration with a software developer. Finally, we examined the content validity of the app with parents (n = 14) and researchers (n = 6) using focus groups and individual interviews. Results: The app has a time-use format in which parents proxy-report the activities of their child, using eight activity categories: personal care, eating/drinking, active transport, passive transport, playing, screen use, sitting/lying calmly, and sleeping. Categories are clarified by providing examples of children’s activities. Additionally, 1–4 follow-up questions collect information on intensity (e.g., active or calm), posture, and/or context (e.g., location) of the activity. Parents and researchers considered filling in the app as feasible, taking 10–30 min per day. The activity categories were considered comprehensive, but alternative examples for several activity categories were suggested to increase the comprehensibility and relevance. Some follow-up questions were considered less relevant. These suggestions were adopted in the second version of the My Little Moves app. Conclusions: Involving end-users and key stakeholders in the development of the My Little Moves app resulted in a tailored tool to assess 24-h movement behaviors in 0–4-year-olds with adequate content validity. Future studies are needed to evaluate other measurement properties of the app.
MULTIFILE
