Suppr超能文献

轮班工作者和非轮班工作者身体活动与久坐行为的生态瞬时评估:验证研究

Ecological momentary assessment of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in shift workers and non-shift workers: Validation study.

作者信息

Monnaatsie Malebogo, Mielke Gregore I, Biddle Stuart J H, Kolbe-Alexander Tracy L

机构信息

School of Health and Medical Sciences, Faculty of Health, Engineering and Sciences, University of Southern Queensland, Ipswich, Queensland, Australia.

Centre for Health Research, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, Queensland, Australia.

出版信息

J Sports Sci. 2024 Jun 20:1-10. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2024.2369443.

Abstract

This study examined the criterion validity of an ecological momentary assessment (EMA)-reported physical activity and sedentary time compared with accelerometry in shift workers and non-shift workers. Australian workers ( = 102) received prompts through a mobile EMA app and wore the Actigraph accelerometer on the right hip for 7-10 days. Participants received five EMA prompts per day at 3-hour intervals on their mobile phones. EMA prompts sent to shift workers (SW-T) were tailored according to their work schedule. Non-shift workers (NSW-S) received prompts at standardised times. To assess criterion validity, the association of EMA-reported activities and the Actigraph accelerometer activity counts and number of steps were used. Participants were 36 ± 11 years and 58% were female. On occasions where participants reported physical activity, acceleration counts per minute (CPM) and steps were significantly higher (β = 1184 CPM, CI 95%: 1034, 1334; β = 20.9 steps, CI 95%: 18.2, 23.6) than each of the other EMA activities. Acceleration counts and steps were lower when sitting was reported than when no sitting was reported by EMA. Our study showed that EMA-reported physical activity and sedentary time was significantly associated with accelerometer-derived data. Therefore, EMA can be considered to assess shift workers' movement-related behaviours with accelerometers to provide rich contextual data.

摘要

本研究考察了生态瞬时评估(EMA)报告的体力活动和久坐时间与加速度计测量结果相比,在轮班工人和非轮班工人中的效标效度。102名澳大利亚工人通过移动EMA应用程序接收提示,并在右髋部佩戴Actigraph加速度计7至10天。参与者每天通过手机每隔3小时收到5次EMA提示。发送给轮班工人(SW-T)的EMA提示根据他们的工作时间表进行调整。非轮班工人(NSW-S)在标准化时间接收提示。为了评估效标效度,使用了EMA报告的活动与Actigraph加速度计活动计数和步数之间的关联。参与者年龄为36±11岁,58%为女性。在参与者报告进行体力活动的情况下,每分钟加速度计数(CPM)和步数显著高于其他EMA活动(β=1184 CPM,95%置信区间:1034,1334;β=20.9步,95%置信区间:18.2,23.6)。当EMA报告为坐着时,加速度计数和步数低于未报告坐着的情况。我们的研究表明,EMA报告的体力活动和久坐时间与加速度计得出的数据显著相关。因此,EMA可被视为与加速度计一起评估轮班工人与运动相关的行为,以提供丰富的情境数据。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验