主观疲劳感知评估在监测 1 型糖尿病患者外游戏强度中的有效性：一项横断面随机试验。

Is rating of perceived exertion a valid method for monitoring exergaming intensity in type-1 diabetics? A cross-sectional randomized trial.

机构信息

Department of Physical Education, Federal University of Vale do São Francisco, Petrolina, Brazil; Department of Physical Education, Rehabilitation and Functional Performance, Universidade de Pernambuco, Petrolina, Brazil.

School of Digital, Technologies and Arts, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 2DE, United Kingdom.

出版信息

J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2023 Oct;36:432-437. doi: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2023.05.018. Epub 2023 Aug 24.

DOI:10.1016/j.jbmt.2023.05.018

PMID:37949596

Abstract

AIMS

The rating of perceived exertion (RPE) provides correlations with physiological measurements of exercise intensity, including metabolic equivalent (MET), oxygen consumption (V˙O), and heart rate (HR), in real (RS) and virtual (VS) sessions. To use RPE in patients with pathology, we aimed to examine the concurrent validity of RPE in type-1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patients while exergaming.

METHODS

Ten T1DM patients performed two 30-min crossover sessions of moderate-intensity exercise (washout 72-196 h). The RS group performed running, and the VS group played the Kinect Adventures! video game. METs were measured by a direct gas analyzer during the sessions, and RPE was measured on the 6 - 20 point Borg scale after the sessions.

RESULTS

RS and VS showed similar RPE (13.2 ± 2.7 vs. 14.2 ± 2.4) and MET (4.6 ± 1.1 vs. 4.0 ± 0.8) values (p > 0.05). RPE vs. MET correlation-coefficients were large in RS (r = 0.64; R = 41; p = 0.04) and were moderate in VS (r = 0.42; R = 18; p = 0.22). Additionally, RS secondary values (V˙O and HR vs. RPE) showed high coefficients (V˙O = 0.62; average HR = 0.62; maximal HR = 0.50, p < 0.05). VS secondary values, on the other hand, showed low-moderate coefficients (V˙O = 0.42; average HR = 0.23; maximal HR = 0.21, p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The current validation showed that RPE may not be a valid and strong method for T1DM patients while exergaming. Healthcare professionals should cautiously use the 6 - 20 point RPE scale in pathological patients, specifically in T1DM while exergaming.

摘要

目的

感知用力程度（RPE）与运动强度的生理测量值（包括代谢当量（MET）、耗氧量（V˙O）和心率（HR））具有相关性，可应用于真实（RS）和虚拟（VS）运动场景。为了在患有病理的患者中使用 RPE，我们旨在研究 1 型糖尿病（T1DM）患者在进行运动游戏时 RPE 的同时效度。

方法

10 名 T1DM 患者进行了两次 30 分钟的交叉中等强度运动（洗脱期 72-196 小时）。RS 组进行跑步，VS 组玩 Kinect Adventures！电子游戏。在运动期间通过直接气体分析仪测量 MET，运动后使用 6-20 分 Borg 量表测量 RPE。

结果

RS 和 VS 显示出相似的 RPE（13.2±2.7 与 14.2±2.4）和 MET（4.6±1.1 与 4.0±0.8）值（p>0.05）。RS 中的 RPE 与 MET 相关系数较大（r=0.64；R²=41；p=0.04），VS 中的相关系数为中度（r=0.42；R²=18；p=0.22）。此外，RS 的次要值（V˙O 和 HR 与 RPE）显示出较高的系数（V˙O=0.62；平均 HR=0.62；最大 HR=0.50，p<0.05）。然而，VS 的次要值显示出低中度系数（V˙O=0.42；平均 HR=0.23；最大 HR=0.21，p>0.05）。