Suppr超能文献

用于评估久坐行为的24小时活动回忆法的准确性:体力活动测量调查(PAMS)项目

The accuracy of the 24-h activity recall method for assessing sedentary behaviour: the physical activity measurement survey (PAMS) project.

作者信息

Kim Youngwon, Welk Gregory J

机构信息

a MRC Epidemiology Unit , University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine , Cambridge , UK.

b Department of Kinesiology , Iowa State University , Ames , IA , USA.

出版信息

J Sports Sci. 2017 Feb;35(3):255-261. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1161218. Epub 2016 Mar 28.

Abstract

Sedentary behaviour (SB) has emerged as a modifiable risk factor, but little is known about measurement errors of SB. The purpose of this study was to determine the validity of 24-h Physical Activity Recall (24PAR) relative to SenseWear Armband (SWA) for assessing SB. Each participant (n = 1485) undertook a series of data collection procedures on two randomly selected days: wearing a SWA for full 24-h, and then completing the telephone-administered 24PAR the following day to recall the past 24-h activities. Estimates of total sedentary time (TST) were computed without the inclusion of reported or recorded sleep time. Equivalence testing was used to compare estimates of TST. Analyses from equivalence testing showed no significant equivalence of 24PAR for TST (90% CI: 443.0 and 457.6 min · day) relative to SWA (equivalence zone: 580.7 and 709.8 min · day). Bland-Altman plots indicated individuals that were extremely or minimally sedentary provided relatively comparable sedentary time between 24PAR and SWA. Overweight/obese and/or older individuals were more likely to under-estimate sedentary time than normal weight and/or younger individuals. Measurement errors of 24PAR varied by the level of sedentary time and demographic indicators. This evidence informs future work to develop measurement error models to correct for errors of self-reports.

摘要

久坐行为(SB)已成为一种可改变的风险因素,但对于SB的测量误差知之甚少。本研究的目的是确定相对于SenseWear臂带(SWA),24小时体力活动回忆法(24PAR)在评估SB方面的有效性。每位参与者(n = 1485)在两个随机选择的日子里进行了一系列数据收集程序:佩戴SWA整整24小时,然后在第二天完成电话访谈的24PAR,以回忆过去24小时的活动。计算总久坐时间(TST)的估计值时不包括报告的或记录的睡眠时间。采用等效性检验来比较TST的估计值。等效性检验分析表明,相对于SWA(等效区间:580.7和709.8分钟·天),24PAR对TST的估计值无显著等效性(90%置信区间:443.0和457.6分钟·天)。Bland-Altman图表明,久坐程度极高或极低的个体在24PAR和SWA之间的久坐时间相对可比。超重/肥胖和/或年龄较大的个体比正常体重和/或年龄较小的个体更有可能低估久坐时间。24PAR的测量误差因久坐时间水平和人口统计学指标而异。这一证据为未来开发测量误差模型以校正自我报告误差的工作提供了参考。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

3

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验