Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Estimating physical activity and sedentary behaviour in a free-living environment: A comparative study between Fitbit Charge 2 and Actigraph GT3X

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Antigenic and immunogenic evaluation of permutations of soluble hepatitis C virus envelope protein E2 and E1 antigens

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Dancing with atrial fibrillation - How arrhythmia affects everyday life of family members: A qualitative study

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Endothelial glycocalyx and cardio-renal risk factors in type 1 diabetes

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Phase angle measured by bioelectrical impedance analysis and the risk of cardiovascular disease among adult Danes

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Protein Intake During Infancy and Subsequent Body Mass Index in Early Childhood: Results from the Melbourne InFANT Program

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Loss of height predicts total and cardiovascular mortality: a cohort study of northern European women

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

BACKGROUND: Activity trackers such as the Fitbit Charge 2 enable users and researchers to monitor physical activity in daily life, which could be beneficial for changing behaviour. However, the accuracy of the Fitbit Charge 2 in a free-living environment is largely unknown.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the agreement between Fitbit Charge 2 and ActiGraph GT3X for the estimation of steps, energy expenditure, time in sedentary behaviour, and light and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity under free-living conditions, and further examine to what extent placing the ActiGraph on the wrist as opposed to the hip would affect the findings.

METHODS: 41 adults (n = 10 males, n = 31 females) were asked to wear a Fitbit Charge 2 device and two ActiGraph GT3X devices (one on the hip and one on the wrist) for seven consecutive days and fill out a log of wear times. Agreement was assessed through Bland-Altman plots combined with multilevel analysis.

RESULTS: The Fitbit measured 1,492 steps/day more than the hip-worn ActiGraph (limits of agreement [LoA] = -2,250; 5,234), while for sedentary time, it measured 25 min/day less (LoA = -137; 87). Both Bland-Altman plots showed fixed bias. For time in light physical activity, the Fitbit measured 59 min/day more (LoA = -52;169). For time in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, the Fitbit measured 31 min/day less (LoA = -132; 71) and for activity energy expenditure it measured 408 kcal/day more than the hip-worn ActiGraph (LoA = -385; 1,200). For the two latter outputs, the plots indicated proportional bias. Similar or more pronounced discrepancies, mostly in opposite direction, appeared when comparing to the wrist-worn ActiGraph.

CONCLUSION: Moderate to substantial differences between devices were found for most outputs, which could be due to differences in algorithms. Caution should be taken if replacing one device with another and when comparing results.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
Artikelnummere0234426
TidsskriftPLoS One
Vol/bind15
Udgave nummer6 June
Sider (fra-til)e0234426
ISSN1932-6203
DOI
StatusUdgivet - jun. 2020

ID: 61192974