Tully Mark A, Panter Jenna, Ogilvie David
UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health (NI), Centre for Public Health, Institute for Clinical Science (B), Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, United Kingdom.
MRC Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 11;9(6):e99636. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099636. eCollection 2014.
Accurate assessment tools are required for the surveillance of physical activity (PA) levels and the assessment of the effect of interventions. In addition, increasing awareness of PA is often used as the first step in pragmatic behavioural interventions, as discrepancies between the amount of activity an individual perceives they do and the amount actually undertaken may act as a barrier to change. Previous research has demonstrated differences in the amount of activity individuals report doing, compared to their level of physical activity when measured with an accelerometer. Understanding the characteristics of those whose PA level is ranked differently when measured with either self-report or accelerometry is important as it may inform the choice of instrument for future research. The aim of this project was to determine which individual characteristics are associated with differences between self-reported and accelerometer measured physical activity.
Participant data from the 2009 wave of the Commuting and Health in Cambridge study were used. Quartiles of self-reported and accelerometer-measured PA were derived by ranking each measure from lowest to highest. These quartiles were compared to determine whether individuals' physical activity was ranked higher by either method. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to investigate the individual characteristics associated with different categories of mismatch.
Data from 486 participants (70% female) were included in the analysis. In adjusted analyses, the physical activity of overweight or obese individuals was significantly more likely to be ranked higher by self-report than by accelerometer than that of normal-weight individuals (OR = 2.07, 95%CI = 1.28-3.34), particularly among women (OR = 3.97, 95%CI = 2.11-7.47).
There was a greater likelihood of mismatch between self-reported and accelerometer measured physical activity levels in overweight or obese adults. Future studies in overweight or obese adults should consider employing both methods of measurement.
监测身体活动（PA）水平和评估干预效果需要准确的评估工具。此外，提高对PA的认识通常被用作务实行为干预的第一步，因为个体感知到的活动量与实际进行的活动量之间的差异可能成为改变的障碍。先前的研究表明，与用加速度计测量的身体活动水平相比，个体报告的活动量存在差异。了解那些通过自我报告或加速度计测量时PA水平排名不同的人的特征很重要，因为这可能为未来研究的测量工具选择提供参考。本项目的目的是确定哪些个体特征与自我报告和加速度计测量的身体活动差异相关。
使用了来自2009年剑桥通勤与健康研究的数据。通过将自我报告和加速度计测量的PA从最低到最高进行排名，得出四分位数。比较这些四分位数，以确定个体的身体活动在两种方法中是否有更高的排名。使用多项逻辑回归模型来研究与不同类别不匹配相关的个体特征。
486名参与者（70%为女性）的数据纳入了分析。在调整分析中，超重或肥胖个体的身体活动通过自我报告的排名显著高于加速度计测量的排名，比正常体重个体更明显（OR = 2.07，95%CI = 1.28 - 3.34），特别是在女性中（OR = 3.97，95%CI = 2.11 - 7.47）。
超重或肥胖成年人中，自我报告和加速度计测量的身体活动水平之间不匹配的可能性更大。未来针对超重或肥胖成年人的研究应考虑采用两种测量方法。
