Freene Nicole, Waddington Gordon, Chesworth Wendy, Davey Rachel, Cochrane Tom
Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
J Sci Med Sport. 2014 Nov;17(6):611-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2013.11.002. Epub 2013 Nov 19.
To compare self-reported physical activity recorded in physical activity diaries or the Active Australia Survey with objectively measured physical activity using accelerometry in sedentary middle-aged adults completing two physical activity interventions.
Cross-sectional study.
Sedentary 50-65 year olds were recruited to a non-randomized 6-month community group exercise program (G) or a physiotherapist-led home-based physical activity program (HB). Over 7-days, 76 participants (HB 39, G 37) wore an ActiGraph GT1M accelerometer (5s epochs), completed the Active Australia Survey (AAS) and a daily physical activity diary. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Spearman rank-order correlations.
The two interventions had similar demographic and physical activity characteristics except that home-based participants were younger (p < 0.01), more likely to be employed full time (p ≤ 0.001) and reported less moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in the physical activity diaries compared to group exercise participants (HB 29 ± 21 min d(-1) vs. G 57 ± 35 min d(-1), p ≤ 0.001). Home-based participants had fair-to-good agreement between the physical activity diaries and AAS or ActiGraph data (r = 0.39-0.68, p < 0.05). Group exercise physical activity diary data did not correlate significantly with either the AAS or ActiGraph data. In contrast, group exercise AAS data had good correlations with ActiGraph data (r = 0.49-0.64, p ≤ 0.001).
Physical activity diaries should be interpreted cautiously unless intervention participants have an adequate understanding of physical activity intensity. The AAS is the preferred self-report measure in middle-aged adults independent of intervention.
比较久坐不动的中年成年人在完成两项体育活动干预措施后，体育活动日记或澳大利亚积极活动调查中自我报告的体育活动与使用加速度计客观测量的体育活动。
横断面研究。
招募50 - 65岁的久坐不动者参加一项非随机的为期6个月的社区团体锻炼计划（G组）或由物理治疗师指导的居家体育活动计划（HB组）。在7天时间里，76名参与者（HB组39人，G组37人）佩戴ActiGraph GT1M加速度计（5秒时间段），完成澳大利亚积极活动调查（AAS）和每日体育活动日记。使用描述性统计和斯皮尔曼等级相关性分析数据。
两项干预措施具有相似的人口统计学和体育活动特征，但居家参与者更年轻（p < 0.01），更有可能全职工作（p ≤ 0.001），并且与团体锻炼参与者相比，在体育活动日记中报告的中度至剧烈体育活动较少（HB组29 ± 21分钟/天 vs. G组57 ± 35分钟/天，p ≤ 0.001）。居家参与者在体育活动日记与AAS或ActiGraph数据之间具有中等至良好的一致性（r = 0.39 - 0.68，p < 0.05）。团体锻炼的体育活动日记数据与AAS或ActiGraph数据均无显著相关性。相比之下，团体锻炼的AAS数据与ActiGraph数据具有良好的相关性（r = 0.49 - 0.64，p ≤ 0.001）。
除非干预参与者对体育活动强度有充分的理解，否则对体育活动日记的解读应谨慎。在中年成年人中，无论是否进行干预，AAS都是首选的自我报告测量方法。
