Comparison of a Thigh-Worn Accelerometer Algorithm With Diary Estimates of Time in Bed and Time Asleep: The 1970 British Cohort Study

E. Inan-Eroglu, Bo-Huei Huang, L. Shepherd, N. Pearson, A. Koster, Peter Palm, P. Cistulli, M. Hamer, E. Stamatakis
{"title":"Comparison of a Thigh-Worn Accelerometer Algorithm With Diary Estimates of Time in Bed and Time Asleep: The 1970 British Cohort Study","authors":"E. Inan-Eroglu, Bo-Huei Huang, L. Shepherd, N. Pearson, A. Koster, Peter Palm, P. Cistulli, M. Hamer, E. Stamatakis","doi":"10.1123/JMPB.2020-0033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Thigh-worn accelerometers have established reliability and validity for measurement of free-living physical activity-related behaviors. However, comparisons of methods for measuring sleep and time in bed using the thigh-worn accelerometer are rare. The authors compared the thigh-worn accelerometer algorithm that estimates time in bed with the output of a sleep diary (time in bed and time asleep). Methods: Participants (N = 5,498), from the 1970 British Cohort Study, wore an activPAL device on their thigh continuously for 7 days and completed a sleep diary. Bland–Altman plots and Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine associations between the algorithm derived and diary time in bed and asleep. Results: The algorithm estimated acceptable levels of agreement with time in bed when compared with diary time in bed (mean bias of −11.4 min; limits of agreement −264.6 to 241.8). The algorithm-derived time in bed overestimated diary sleep time (mean bias of 55.2 min; limits of agreement −204.5 to 314.8 min). Algorithm and sleep diary are reasonably correlated (ρ = .48, 95% confidence interval [.45, .52] for women and ρ = .51, 95% confidence interval [.47, .55] for men) and provide broadly comparable estimates of time in bed but not for sleep time. Conclusions: The algorithm showed acceptable estimates of time in bed compared with diary at the group level. However, about half of the participants were outside of the ±30 min difference of a clinically relevant limit at an individual level.","PeriodicalId":73572,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","volume":"93 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/JMPB.2020-0033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Background: Thigh-worn accelerometers have established reliability and validity for measurement of free-living physical activity-related behaviors. However, comparisons of methods for measuring sleep and time in bed using the thigh-worn accelerometer are rare. The authors compared the thigh-worn accelerometer algorithm that estimates time in bed with the output of a sleep diary (time in bed and time asleep). Methods: Participants (N = 5,498), from the 1970 British Cohort Study, wore an activPAL device on their thigh continuously for 7 days and completed a sleep diary. Bland–Altman plots and Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine associations between the algorithm derived and diary time in bed and asleep. Results: The algorithm estimated acceptable levels of agreement with time in bed when compared with diary time in bed (mean bias of −11.4 min; limits of agreement −264.6 to 241.8). The algorithm-derived time in bed overestimated diary sleep time (mean bias of 55.2 min; limits of agreement −204.5 to 314.8 min). Algorithm and sleep diary are reasonably correlated (ρ = .48, 95% confidence interval [.45, .52] for women and ρ = .51, 95% confidence interval [.47, .55] for men) and provide broadly comparable estimates of time in bed but not for sleep time. Conclusions: The algorithm showed acceptable estimates of time in bed compared with diary at the group level. However, about half of the participants were outside of the ±30 min difference of a clinically relevant limit at an individual level.
穿戴在大腿上的加速度计算法与日记估计的卧床时间和睡眠时间的比较:1970年英国队列研究
背景:穿戴式加速度计已经建立了测量自由生活体育活动相关行为的信度和效度。然而,使用穿戴在大腿上的加速度计测量睡眠和卧床时间的方法很少进行比较。作者将穿戴在大腿上的加速度计算法与睡眠日记的输出(在床上的时间和睡眠时间)进行了比较。方法:1970年英国队列研究的参与者(N = 5498)在大腿上连续佩戴活动pal装置7天,并完成睡眠日记。使用Bland-Altman图和Pearson相关系数来检验所导出的算法与日记卧床时间和睡眠时间之间的关联。结果:与在床上的日记时间相比,该算法估计了与床上时间的可接受一致性水平(平均偏差为- 11.4分钟;协议限制(264.6至241.8)。算法得出的床上时间高估了日记睡眠时间(平均偏差为55.2分钟;协议限制−204.5至314.8分钟)。算法和睡眠日记是合理相关的(ρ =。48、95%置信区间[。45, 0.52], ρ =。51、95%置信区间[。[47.55]男性),并提供了大致可比较的卧床时间估算,但没有提供睡眠时间估算。结论:与日记相比,该算法在组水平上显示了可接受的卧床时间估计。然而,大约一半的参与者在个体水平上超出了临床相关限制的±30分钟差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信