Measuring physical activity with hip accelerometry among U.S. older adults: How many days are enough?
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 12, Issue: 1, Page: e0170082
2017
- 42Citations
- 131Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations42
- Citation Indexes42
- 42
- CrossRef23
- Captures131
- Readers131
- 131
Article Description
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.
Bibliographic Details
10.1371/journal.pone.0170082; 10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g003; 10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g004; 10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g005; 10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g002; 10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g001; 10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.t001; 10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.t002
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85009517345&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28081249; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g003; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g003; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g004; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g004; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g005; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g005; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g002; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.t001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.t001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.t002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.t002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g003; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g003; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g004; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g004; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170082; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.t001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.t001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.t002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.t002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g005; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g005; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g002; http://www.plosone.org/article/metrics/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170082&type=printable; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170082; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170082&type=printable; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g004; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.t002; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g001; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g003; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.t001; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0170082; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170082.g005
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know