E. Inan-Eroglu, Bo-Huei Huang, L. Shepherd, N. Pearson, A. Koster, Peter Palm, P. Cistulli, M. Hamer, E. Stamatakis
{"title":"穿戴在大腿上的加速度计算法与日记估计的卧床时间和睡眠时间的比较:1970年英国队列研究","authors":"E. Inan-Eroglu, Bo-Huei Huang, L. Shepherd, N. Pearson, A. Koster, Peter Palm, P. Cistulli, M. Hamer, E. Stamatakis","doi":"10.1123/JMPB.2020-0033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Thigh-worn accelerometers have established reliability and validity for measurement of free-living physical activity-related behaviors. However, comparisons of methods for measuring sleep and time in bed using the thigh-worn accelerometer are rare. The authors compared the thigh-worn accelerometer algorithm that estimates time in bed with the output of a sleep diary (time in bed and time asleep). Methods: Participants (N = 5,498), from the 1970 British Cohort Study, wore an activPAL device on their thigh continuously for 7 days and completed a sleep diary. Bland–Altman plots and Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine associations between the algorithm derived and diary time in bed and asleep. Results: The algorithm estimated acceptable levels of agreement with time in bed when compared with diary time in bed (mean bias of −11.4 min; limits of agreement −264.6 to 241.8). The algorithm-derived time in bed overestimated diary sleep time (mean bias of 55.2 min; limits of agreement −204.5 to 314.8 min). Algorithm and sleep diary are reasonably correlated (ρ = .48, 95% confidence interval [.45, .52] for women and ρ = .51, 95% confidence interval [.47, .55] for men) and provide broadly comparable estimates of time in bed but not for sleep time. Conclusions: The algorithm showed acceptable estimates of time in bed compared with diary at the group level. However, about half of the participants were outside of the ±30 min difference of a clinically relevant limit at an individual level.","PeriodicalId":73572,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","volume":"93 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of a Thigh-Worn Accelerometer Algorithm With Diary Estimates of Time in Bed and Time Asleep: The 1970 British Cohort Study\",\"authors\":\"E. Inan-Eroglu, Bo-Huei Huang, L. Shepherd, N. Pearson, A. Koster, Peter Palm, P. Cistulli, M. Hamer, E. Stamatakis\",\"doi\":\"10.1123/JMPB.2020-0033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Thigh-worn accelerometers have established reliability and validity for measurement of free-living physical activity-related behaviors. However, comparisons of methods for measuring sleep and time in bed using the thigh-worn accelerometer are rare. The authors compared the thigh-worn accelerometer algorithm that estimates time in bed with the output of a sleep diary (time in bed and time asleep). Methods: Participants (N = 5,498), from the 1970 British Cohort Study, wore an activPAL device on their thigh continuously for 7 days and completed a sleep diary. Bland–Altman plots and Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine associations between the algorithm derived and diary time in bed and asleep. Results: The algorithm estimated acceptable levels of agreement with time in bed when compared with diary time in bed (mean bias of −11.4 min; limits of agreement −264.6 to 241.8). The algorithm-derived time in bed overestimated diary sleep time (mean bias of 55.2 min; limits of agreement −204.5 to 314.8 min). Algorithm and sleep diary are reasonably correlated (ρ = .48, 95% confidence interval [.45, .52] for women and ρ = .51, 95% confidence interval [.47, .55] for men) and provide broadly comparable estimates of time in bed but not for sleep time. Conclusions: The algorithm showed acceptable estimates of time in bed compared with diary at the group level. However, about half of the participants were outside of the ±30 min difference of a clinically relevant limit at an individual level.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73572,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour\",\"volume\":\"93 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1123/JMPB.2020-0033\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/JMPB.2020-0033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of a Thigh-Worn Accelerometer Algorithm With Diary Estimates of Time in Bed and Time Asleep: The 1970 British Cohort Study
Background: Thigh-worn accelerometers have established reliability and validity for measurement of free-living physical activity-related behaviors. However, comparisons of methods for measuring sleep and time in bed using the thigh-worn accelerometer are rare. The authors compared the thigh-worn accelerometer algorithm that estimates time in bed with the output of a sleep diary (time in bed and time asleep). Methods: Participants (N = 5,498), from the 1970 British Cohort Study, wore an activPAL device on their thigh continuously for 7 days and completed a sleep diary. Bland–Altman plots and Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine associations between the algorithm derived and diary time in bed and asleep. Results: The algorithm estimated acceptable levels of agreement with time in bed when compared with diary time in bed (mean bias of −11.4 min; limits of agreement −264.6 to 241.8). The algorithm-derived time in bed overestimated diary sleep time (mean bias of 55.2 min; limits of agreement −204.5 to 314.8 min). Algorithm and sleep diary are reasonably correlated (ρ = .48, 95% confidence interval [.45, .52] for women and ρ = .51, 95% confidence interval [.47, .55] for men) and provide broadly comparable estimates of time in bed but not for sleep time. Conclusions: The algorithm showed acceptable estimates of time in bed compared with diary at the group level. However, about half of the participants were outside of the ±30 min difference of a clinically relevant limit at an individual level.