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

Abstract

Objective: To validate questionnaire-based physical activity level (PAL) against accelerometry and a 24 h physical activity diary (24 h AD) as reference methods (Protocol 2), after validating these reference methods against the heart rateoxygen consumption (HRVO 2 ) 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 (20?06), but with large limits of agreement against both. Correlations of PAL from the questionnaire with that of the accelerometer (r 5 0?28; P 5 0?01) and the 24 h AD (r 5 0?30; P 5 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 HRVO 2 method (1?69 (SD 0?21)). Conclusions: The questionnaire showed acceptable validity with the reference methods in a group with a wide range of physical activity levels. The accelerometer underestimated PAL in comparison with the HRVO 2 method.

Evaluation of the Indian Migration Study Physical Activity Questionnaire (IMS-PAQ): a cross-sectional study

“…The IMS-PAQ was created by modifying an existing questionnaire and was specifically designed to capture activity patterns and levels across multiple domains relevant to both rural and urban locations in India and across gender as numerous activities are gender specific in India [13,14,16]. The IMS-PAQ was administered by trained interviewers at each study site to gather information on participant's habitual PA.…”

“…Individual daily activity durations were then summed to generate total daily duration for all reported activities. If this value equated to less than 24 hours, a residual time variable was generated and a standard MET value of 1.4, was applied as in previous studies [14,16]. Individuals over-reporting time spent in daily activities (i.e.…”

“…The IMS-PAQ had previously been validated on a small convenience sample of residents (n = 13 & n = 94) based in Bangalore, southern India [14]. Our present study was therefore undertaken to provide a definitive assessment of the reliability and validity of the IMS-PAQ in India within the context of the IMS for urban and rural participants.…”

Design and Evaluation of a Computer-Based 24-Hour Physical Activity Recall (cpar24) Instrument

“…Studies validating physical activity recalls using accelerometry as the gold standard reported stronger average correlation coefficients between energy expenditure estimates (expressed as total energy expenditure, physical activity energy expenditure, average MET per hour, or physical activity MET per week) and accelerometer counts per minute from 24-h recalls than from 7-day recalls (24-h recalls [9,10,41,50,51]: average correlation=.48, range=.23-.82; 7-day recalls [41,51-55]: average correlation=.36, range=−.02-.90). In contrast, average correlations between self-report and accelerometer-based estimates for time spent in sedentary and light activities were greater for 7-day recalls than for 24-h recalls, whereas those for time spent in moderate to vigorous activities agreed across 24-h recalls and 7-day recalls (time spent in sedentary activities among 24-h recalls [10,12]: average correlation=.19, range=−.05-.59; time spent in sedentary activities among 7-day recalls [52,54-57]: average correlation=.37, range=.20-.65; time spent in light activities among 24-h recalls [11,12,58]: average correlation=.18, range=−.16-.45; time spent in light activities among a single 7-day recall [58]: correlation=.37; time spent in moderate to vigorous activities among 24-h recalls [10,11,59,60]: average correlation=.19, range=.05-.26; time spent in moderate to vigorous activities among 7-day recalls [39,55-57,60,61]: average correlation=.26, range=.06-.51).…”

“…In contrast, average correlations between self-report and accelerometer-based estimates for time spent in sedentary and light activities were greater for 7-day recalls than for 24-h recalls, whereas those for time spent in moderate to vigorous activities agreed across 24-h recalls and 7-day recalls (time spent in sedentary activities among 24-h recalls [10,12]: average correlation=.19, range=−.05-.59; time spent in sedentary activities among 7-day recalls [52,54-57]: average correlation=.37, range=.20-.65; time spent in light activities among 24-h recalls [11,12,58]: average correlation=.18, range=−.16-.45; time spent in light activities among a single 7-day recall [58]: correlation=.37; time spent in moderate to vigorous activities among 24-h recalls [10,11,59,60]: average correlation=.19, range=.05-.26; time spent in moderate to vigorous activities among 7-day recalls [39,55-57,60,61]: average correlation=.26, range=.06-.51). Studies comparing short-term physical activity recalls (24 h to 7 days) with accelerometry tended to report greater estimates of total energy expenditure, light activities, and moderate to vigorous activities (percent difference for total energy expenditure [50,51]: mean=+19%, range=+12%-+31%; for physical activity energy expenditure [49,53]: mean=+87%, range=+80%-+95%; for light activities [11,12,58]: mean=+36%, range=−8%-+107%; for moderate to vigorous activities [11,55,56,59-61]: mean=+260%, range=+29%-+778%). In contrast, there were as many studies overestimating sedentary activities as there were studies underestimating sedentary activities (percent difference for sedentary activities among studies overestimating sedentary activities [11,12,54]: mean=+17%, range=+11%-+27%; among studies underestimating sedentary activities [55-57]: mean=−32%, range=−44% to −13%; among all studies estimating sedentary activities [11,12,54-57]: mean=−4%, range=−44%-+27%).…”