4.3 Article

Assessment of physical activity using accelerometry, an activity diary, the heart rate method and the Indian Migration Study questionnaire in South Indian adults

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages 47-53

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1368980009005850

Keywords

Questionnaires; India; Validation studies; Physical activity

Funding

  1. Wellcome Trust [GR070797MF]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To validate questionnaire-based physical activity level (PAL) against accelerometry and a 24 h physical diary (24 h AD) as reference methods (Protocol 2), after validating these reference methods against the heart rate-oxygen consumption (HRVO2) method (Protocol 1). Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Two villages in Andhra Pradesh state and Bangalore city, South India. Subjects: Ninety-four participants (fifty males, forty-four females) for Protocol 2; thirteen males for Protocol 1. Results: In Protocol 2, mean PAL derived from the questionnaire (1.72 (SD 0.;20)) was comparable to that from the 24 h AD (1.78 (SD 0.20)) but significantly higher than the mean PAL derived from accelerometry (1.36 (SD 0.20); P < 0.001). Mean bias of PAL from the questionnaire was larger against the accelerometer (0.36) than against the 24 h AD (-0.06), but with large limits of agreement against both. Correlations of PAL from the questionnaire with that of the accelerometer (r = 0.28; P = 0.01) and the 24 h AD (r = 0.30; P = 0.006) were modest. In Protocol 1, mean PAL from the 24 h AD (1.65 (SD 0.18)) was comparable, while that from the accelerometer (1.51 (SD 0.23)) was significantly lower (P < 0.001), than mean PAL obtained from the HRVO2 method (1.69 (SD 0.21)). Conclusions: The questionnaire showed acceptable validity with the reference method in a group with a wide range of physical activity levels. The accelerometer underestimated PAL in comparison with the HRVO2 method.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available