TY - JOUR
T1 - Identifying ActiGraph non-wear time in pregnant women with overweight or obesity
AU - Leonard, Krista S.
AU - Pauley, Abigail M.
AU - Hohman, Emily E.
AU - Guo, Penghong
AU - Rivera, Daniel E.
AU - Savage, Jennifer S.
AU - Buman, Matthew P.
AU - Symons Downs, Danielle
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors would like to thank all study participants for their participation. Support of this work was provided by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) through grant R01HL119245-01 . This project was also supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences ( NCATS ), NIH through Grant UL1 TR000127 and UL1 TR002014 . The content is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NHLBI or NCATS.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Sports Medicine Australia
PY - 2020/12
Y1 - 2020/12
N2 - Objectives: Non-wear time algorithms have not been validated in pregnant women with overweight/obesity (PW-OW/OB), potentially leading to misclassification of sedentary/activity data, and inaccurate estimates of how physical activity is associated with pregnancy outcomes. We examined: (1) validity/reliability of non-wear time algorithms in PW-OW/OB by comparing wear time from five algorithms to a self-report criterion and (2) whether these algorithms over- or underestimated sedentary behaviors. Design: PW-OW/OB (N = 19) from the Healthy Mom Zone randomized controlled trial wore an ActiGraph GT3x + for 7 consecutive days between 8–12 weeks gestation. Methods: Non-wear algorithms (i.e., consecutive strings of zero acceleration in 60-second epochs) were tested at 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180-min. The monitor registered sedentary minutes as activity counts 0−99. Women completed daily self-report logs to report wear time. Results: Intraclass correlation coefficients for each algorithm were 0.96−0.97; Bland–Altman plots revealed no bias; mean absolute percent errors were <10%. Compared to self-report (M = 829.5, SD = 62.1), equivalency testing revealed algorithm wear times (min/day) were equivalent: 60- (M = 816.4, SD = 58.4), 90- (M = 827.5, SD = 61.4), 120- (M = 830.8, SD = 65.2), 150- (M = 833.8, SD = 64.6) and 180-min (M = 837.4, SD = 65.4). Repeated measures ANOVA showed 60- and 90-min algorithms may underestimate sedentary minutes compared to 150- and 180-min algorithms. Conclusions: The 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180-min algorithms are valid and reliable for estimating wear time in PW-OW/OB. However, implementing algorithms with a higher threshold for consecutive zero counts (i.e., ≥150-min) can avoid the risk of misclassifying sedentary data.
AB - Objectives: Non-wear time algorithms have not been validated in pregnant women with overweight/obesity (PW-OW/OB), potentially leading to misclassification of sedentary/activity data, and inaccurate estimates of how physical activity is associated with pregnancy outcomes. We examined: (1) validity/reliability of non-wear time algorithms in PW-OW/OB by comparing wear time from five algorithms to a self-report criterion and (2) whether these algorithms over- or underestimated sedentary behaviors. Design: PW-OW/OB (N = 19) from the Healthy Mom Zone randomized controlled trial wore an ActiGraph GT3x + for 7 consecutive days between 8–12 weeks gestation. Methods: Non-wear algorithms (i.e., consecutive strings of zero acceleration in 60-second epochs) were tested at 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180-min. The monitor registered sedentary minutes as activity counts 0−99. Women completed daily self-report logs to report wear time. Results: Intraclass correlation coefficients for each algorithm were 0.96−0.97; Bland–Altman plots revealed no bias; mean absolute percent errors were <10%. Compared to self-report (M = 829.5, SD = 62.1), equivalency testing revealed algorithm wear times (min/day) were equivalent: 60- (M = 816.4, SD = 58.4), 90- (M = 827.5, SD = 61.4), 120- (M = 830.8, SD = 65.2), 150- (M = 833.8, SD = 64.6) and 180-min (M = 837.4, SD = 65.4). Repeated measures ANOVA showed 60- and 90-min algorithms may underestimate sedentary minutes compared to 150- and 180-min algorithms. Conclusions: The 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180-min algorithms are valid and reliable for estimating wear time in PW-OW/OB. However, implementing algorithms with a higher threshold for consecutive zero counts (i.e., ≥150-min) can avoid the risk of misclassifying sedentary data.
KW - Accelerometer
KW - Activity monitor
KW - Non-wear algorithm
KW - Physical activity
KW - Pregnancy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85089827825&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85089827825&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jsams.2020.08.003
DO - 10.1016/j.jsams.2020.08.003
M3 - Article
C2 - 32859522
AN - SCOPUS:85089827825
SN - 1440-2440
VL - 23
SP - 1197
EP - 1201
JO - Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
JF - Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
IS - 12
ER -