The UKK Institute for Health Promotion Research, Tampere, Finland.
The National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), Helsinki, Finland.
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018 Oct;28(10):2196-2206. doi: 10.1111/sms.13244. Epub 2018 Jul 9.
This study evaluates the agreement between different methods to assess moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in a large sample of Finnish adults. Methods were classified and examined pairwise (accelerometer vs diary; questionnaire vs interview). Proportion of participants meeting the aerobic health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) recommendation was compared pairwise between all four methods. The present study of 1916 adults aged 18-75 years (mean age 50 years, 57% women) is a sub-sample of population-based Health 2011 Study conducted by the National Institute of Health and Welfare in Finland. Participants used accelerometer for 7 days and completed physical activity (PA) diary during the same period. PA questionnaire and interview were completed retrospectively to assess typical weekly PA over the past year. Agreement between the methods was analyzed with paired samples t-test and Bland-Altman plot. Kappa-test was used to compare the prevalence of meeting the HEPA recommendation. The accelerometer resulted in 13 minutes (P < 0.001) higher weekly total amount of MVPA compared to diary. According to Bland-Altman plot, the 95% limit of agreement was from +273 to -247 in weekly minutes. The comparison between questionnaire and interview showed non-significant mean difference of 3 minutes (P = 0.60) in weekly MVPA, but the Bland-Altman plot showing the 95% limit of agreement from +432 to -427 in weekly minutes. Agreement of meeting HEPA recommendation was moderate between questionnaire and interview (κ = 0.43) but poor (κ = 0.20-0.38) between other comparisons. The inter-method differences were large especially at the individual level. Thus the assessment of PA is strongly method-dependent and not interchangeable.
这项研究评估了在芬兰成年人的大样本中，使用不同方法评估中等到剧烈体力活动（MVPA）的一致性。方法进行了分类，并进行了两两比较（加速度计与日记；问卷与访谈）。比较了所有四种方法之间满足有氧健康促进体力活动（HEPA）建议的参与者比例。本研究包括 1916 名年龄在 18-75 岁（平均年龄 50 岁，57%为女性）的成年人，他们是芬兰国家卫生与福利研究所进行的基于人群的健康 2011 研究的子样本。参与者使用加速度计进行了 7 天的测量，并在同一时期填写了体力活动（PA）日记。使用 PA 问卷和访谈回顾性地评估了过去一年的典型每周 PA。使用配对样本 t 检验和 Bland-Altman 图分析方法之间的一致性。Kappa 检验用于比较达到 HEPA 建议的流行率。与日记相比，加速度计每周总 MVPA 多出 13 分钟（P<0.001）。根据 Bland-Altman 图，每周分钟的 95%一致性限为+273 至-247。问卷和访谈之间的比较显示每周 MVPA 的平均差异不显著（3 分钟，P=0.60），但 Bland-Altman 图显示每周分钟的 95%一致性限为+432 至-427。问卷和访谈之间达到 HEPA 建议的一致性是中等的（κ=0.43），但其他比较的一致性较差（κ=0.20-0.38）。个体间的方法差异较大。因此，PA 的评估强烈依赖于方法，并且不能互换。
