Agreement between self-reported and objectively assessed physical activity among out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 PHYSIOLOGY Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging Pub Date : 2023-10-13 DOI:10.1111/cpf.12860
Katarina Heimburg, Gisela Lilja, Erik Blennow Nordström, Hans Friberg, Lisa Gregersen Oestergaard, Anders M. Grejs, Thomas R. Keeble, Marco Mion, Niklas Nielsen, Christian Rylander, Magnus Segerström, Ida Katrine Thomsen, Susann Ullén, Johan Undén, Matthew P. Wise, Tobias Cronberg, Åsa B. Tornberg
{"title":"Agreement between self-reported and objectively assessed physical activity among out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors","authors":"Katarina Heimburg,&nbsp;Gisela Lilja,&nbsp;Erik Blennow Nordström,&nbsp;Hans Friberg,&nbsp;Lisa Gregersen Oestergaard,&nbsp;Anders M. Grejs,&nbsp;Thomas R. Keeble,&nbsp;Marco Mion,&nbsp;Niklas Nielsen,&nbsp;Christian Rylander,&nbsp;Magnus Segerström,&nbsp;Ida Katrine Thomsen,&nbsp;Susann Ullén,&nbsp;Johan Undén,&nbsp;Matthew P. Wise,&nbsp;Tobias Cronberg,&nbsp;Åsa B. Tornberg","doi":"10.1111/cpf.12860","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Low level of physical activity is a risk factor for new cardiac events in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survivors. Physical activity can be assessed by self-reporting or objectively by accelerometery.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>To investigate the agreement between self-reported and objectively assessed physical activity among OHCA survivors</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Hypothesis</h3>\n \n <p>Self-reported levels of physical activity will show moderate agreement with objectively assessed levels of physical activity.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>Cross-sectional study including OHCA survivors in Sweden, Denmark, and the United Kingdom. Two questions about moderate and vigorous intensity physical activity during the last week were used as self-reports. Moderate and vigorous intensity physical activity were objectively assessed with accelerometers (ActiGraph GT3X-BT) worn upon the right hip for 7 consecutive days.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Forty-nine of 106 OHCA survivors answered the two questions for self-reporting and had 7 valid days of accelerometer assessment. More physically active days were registered by self-report compared with accelerometery for both moderate intensity (median 5 [3:7] vs. 3 [0:5] days; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and vigorous intensity (1 [0:3] vs. 0 [0:0] days; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Correlations between self-reported and accelerometer assessed physical activity were sufficient (moderate intensity: <i>r</i><sub>s</sub> = 0.336, <i>p</i> = 0.018; vigorous intensity: <i>r</i><sub>s</sub> = 0.375, <i>p</i> = 0.008), and agreements were fair and none to slight (moderate intensity: <i>k</i> = 0.269, <i>p</i> = 0.001; vigorous intensity: <i>k</i> = 0.148, <i>p</i> = 0.015). The categorization of self-reported versus objectively assessed physical activity showed that 26% versus 65% had a low level of physical activity.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>OHCA survivors reported more physically active days compared with the results of the accelerometer assessment and correlated sufficiently and agreed fairly and none to slightly.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10504,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cpf.12860","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cpf.12860","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Low level of physical activity is a risk factor for new cardiac events in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survivors. Physical activity can be assessed by self-reporting or objectively by accelerometery.

Aim

To investigate the agreement between self-reported and objectively assessed physical activity among OHCA survivors

Hypothesis

Self-reported levels of physical activity will show moderate agreement with objectively assessed levels of physical activity.

Method

Cross-sectional study including OHCA survivors in Sweden, Denmark, and the United Kingdom. Two questions about moderate and vigorous intensity physical activity during the last week were used as self-reports. Moderate and vigorous intensity physical activity were objectively assessed with accelerometers (ActiGraph GT3X-BT) worn upon the right hip for 7 consecutive days.

Results

Forty-nine of 106 OHCA survivors answered the two questions for self-reporting and had 7 valid days of accelerometer assessment. More physically active days were registered by self-report compared with accelerometery for both moderate intensity (median 5 [3:7] vs. 3 [0:5] days; p < 0.001) and vigorous intensity (1 [0:3] vs. 0 [0:0] days; p < 0.001). Correlations between self-reported and accelerometer assessed physical activity were sufficient (moderate intensity: rs = 0.336, p = 0.018; vigorous intensity: rs = 0.375, p = 0.008), and agreements were fair and none to slight (moderate intensity: k = 0.269, p = 0.001; vigorous intensity: k = 0.148, p = 0.015). The categorization of self-reported versus objectively assessed physical activity showed that 26% versus 65% had a low level of physical activity.

Conclusion

OHCA survivors reported more physically active days compared with the results of the accelerometer assessment and correlated sufficiently and agreed fairly and none to slightly.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
院外心脏骤停幸存者自我报告和客观评估的体力活动之间的一致性。
背景:低水平的体力活动是院外心脏骤停(OHCA)幸存者发生新心脏事件的危险因素。身体活动可以通过自我报告或通过加速度计进行客观评估。目的:调查OHCA幸存者自我报告和客观评估的体力活动之间的一致性假设:自我报告的体力活动水平将与客观评估的体能活动水平显示出适度的一致性。方法:横断面研究,包括瑞典、丹麦和英国的OHCA幸存者。两个关于上周中等强度和高强度体育活动的问题被用作自我报告。用右髋关节上连续7天佩戴的加速度计(ActiGraph GT3X-BT)客观评估中等强度和剧烈强度的体力活动。结果:106名OHCA幸存者中有49人回答了自我报告的两个问题,并进行了7天有效的加速度计评估。与中等强度的加速度计相比,通过自我报告记录的体力活动天数更多(中位数5[3:7]vs.3[0:5]天;ps=0.336,p=0.018;剧烈强度:rs=0.375,p=0.008),一致性一般,从零到轻微(中等强度:k=0.269,p=0.001;剧烈强度:k=0.148,p=0.015)。自我报告和客观评估的体力活动分类显示,26%对65%的人体力活动水平较低。结论:与加速度计评估结果相比,OHCA幸存者报告的体力活动天数更多,相关性充分,一致性较好,从零到轻微。这篇文章受版权保护。保留所有权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.60%
发文量
62
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging publishes reports on clinical and experimental research pertinent to human physiology in health and disease. The scope of the Journal is very broad, covering all aspects of the regulatory system in the cardiovascular, renal and pulmonary systems with special emphasis on methodological aspects. The focus for the journal is, however, work that has potential clinical relevance. The Journal also features review articles on recent front-line research within these fields of interest. Covered by the major abstracting services including Current Contents and Science Citation Index, Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging plays an important role in providing effective and productive communication among clinical physiologists world-wide.
期刊最新文献
Relationship between heart rate variability and echocardiography indices of cardiac function in healthy individuals. Plantar flexor strength and size decrease following single-leg disuse in uninjured adults: A meta-analysis. The effect of eccentric arm cycling on muscle damage and injury-related biomarkers. Issue Information COVID-19 is associated with cardiac structural and functional remodelling in healthy middle-aged and older individuals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1