Estimation of daily energy expenditure in pregnant and non-pregnant women using a wrist-worn tri-axial accelerometer.

Few studies have compared the validity of objective measures of physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) in pregnant and non-pregnant women. PAEE is commonly estimated with accelerometers attached to the hip or waist, but little is known about the validity and participant acceptability of wrist a...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Vincent T van Hees, Frida Renström, Antony Wright, Anna Gradmark, Michael Catt, Kong Y Chen, Marie Löf, Les Bluck, Jeremy Pomeroy, Nicholas J Wareham, Ulf Ekelund, Søren Brage, Paul W Franks
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2011-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3146494?pdf=render
id doaj-81f80d6af6644166b60e5541eb2a9cb8
record_format Article
spelling doaj-81f80d6af6644166b60e5541eb2a9cb82020-11-24T20:45:47ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032011-01-0167e2292210.1371/journal.pone.0022922Estimation of daily energy expenditure in pregnant and non-pregnant women using a wrist-worn tri-axial accelerometer.Vincent T van HeesFrida RenströmAntony WrightAnna GradmarkMichael CattKong Y ChenMarie LöfLes BluckJeremy PomeroyNicholas J WarehamUlf EkelundSøren BragePaul W FranksFew studies have compared the validity of objective measures of physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) in pregnant and non-pregnant women. PAEE is commonly estimated with accelerometers attached to the hip or waist, but little is known about the validity and participant acceptability of wrist attachment. The objectives of the current study were to assess the validity of a simple summary measure derived from a wrist-worn accelerometer (GENEA, Unilever Discover, UK) to estimate PAEE in pregnant and non-pregnant women, and to evaluate participant acceptability.Non-pregnant (N = 73) and pregnant (N = 35) Swedish women (aged 20-35 yrs) wore the accelerometer on their wrist for 10 days during which total energy expenditure (TEE) was assessed using doubly-labelled water. PAEE was calculated as 0.9×TEE-REE. British participants (N = 99; aged 22-65 yrs) wore accelerometers on their non-dominant wrist and hip for seven days and were asked to score the acceptability of monitor placement (scored 1 [least] through 10 [most] acceptable).There was no significant correlation between body weight and PAEE. In non-pregnant women, acceleration explained 24% of the variation in PAEE, which decreased to 19% in leave-one-out cross-validation. In pregnant women, acceleration explained 11% of the variation in PAEE, which was not significant in leave-one-out cross-validation. Median (IQR) acceptability of wrist and hip placement was 9(8-10) and 9(7-10), respectively; there was a within-individual difference of 0.47 (p<.001).A simple summary measure derived from a wrist-worn tri-axial accelerometer adds significantly to the prediction of energy expenditure in non-pregnant women and is scored acceptable by participants.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3146494?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Vincent T van Hees
Frida Renström
Antony Wright
Anna Gradmark
Michael Catt
Kong Y Chen
Marie Löf
Les Bluck
Jeremy Pomeroy
Nicholas J Wareham
Ulf Ekelund
Søren Brage
Paul W Franks
spellingShingle Vincent T van Hees
Frida Renström
Antony Wright
Anna Gradmark
Michael Catt
Kong Y Chen
Marie Löf
Les Bluck
Jeremy Pomeroy
Nicholas J Wareham
Ulf Ekelund
Søren Brage
Paul W Franks
Estimation of daily energy expenditure in pregnant and non-pregnant women using a wrist-worn tri-axial accelerometer.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Vincent T van Hees
Frida Renström
Antony Wright
Anna Gradmark
Michael Catt
Kong Y Chen
Marie Löf
Les Bluck
Jeremy Pomeroy
Nicholas J Wareham
Ulf Ekelund
Søren Brage
Paul W Franks
author_sort Vincent T van Hees
title Estimation of daily energy expenditure in pregnant and non-pregnant women using a wrist-worn tri-axial accelerometer.
title_short Estimation of daily energy expenditure in pregnant and non-pregnant women using a wrist-worn tri-axial accelerometer.
title_full Estimation of daily energy expenditure in pregnant and non-pregnant women using a wrist-worn tri-axial accelerometer.
title_fullStr Estimation of daily energy expenditure in pregnant and non-pregnant women using a wrist-worn tri-axial accelerometer.
title_full_unstemmed Estimation of daily energy expenditure in pregnant and non-pregnant women using a wrist-worn tri-axial accelerometer.
title_sort estimation of daily energy expenditure in pregnant and non-pregnant women using a wrist-worn tri-axial accelerometer.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2011-01-01
description Few studies have compared the validity of objective measures of physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) in pregnant and non-pregnant women. PAEE is commonly estimated with accelerometers attached to the hip or waist, but little is known about the validity and participant acceptability of wrist attachment. The objectives of the current study were to assess the validity of a simple summary measure derived from a wrist-worn accelerometer (GENEA, Unilever Discover, UK) to estimate PAEE in pregnant and non-pregnant women, and to evaluate participant acceptability.Non-pregnant (N = 73) and pregnant (N = 35) Swedish women (aged 20-35 yrs) wore the accelerometer on their wrist for 10 days during which total energy expenditure (TEE) was assessed using doubly-labelled water. PAEE was calculated as 0.9×TEE-REE. British participants (N = 99; aged 22-65 yrs) wore accelerometers on their non-dominant wrist and hip for seven days and were asked to score the acceptability of monitor placement (scored 1 [least] through 10 [most] acceptable).There was no significant correlation between body weight and PAEE. In non-pregnant women, acceleration explained 24% of the variation in PAEE, which decreased to 19% in leave-one-out cross-validation. In pregnant women, acceleration explained 11% of the variation in PAEE, which was not significant in leave-one-out cross-validation. Median (IQR) acceptability of wrist and hip placement was 9(8-10) and 9(7-10), respectively; there was a within-individual difference of 0.47 (p<.001).A simple summary measure derived from a wrist-worn tri-axial accelerometer adds significantly to the prediction of energy expenditure in non-pregnant women and is scored acceptable by participants.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3146494?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT vincenttvanhees estimationofdailyenergyexpenditureinpregnantandnonpregnantwomenusingawristworntriaxialaccelerometer
AT fridarenstrom estimationofdailyenergyexpenditureinpregnantandnonpregnantwomenusingawristworntriaxialaccelerometer
AT antonywright estimationofdailyenergyexpenditureinpregnantandnonpregnantwomenusingawristworntriaxialaccelerometer
AT annagradmark estimationofdailyenergyexpenditureinpregnantandnonpregnantwomenusingawristworntriaxialaccelerometer
AT michaelcatt estimationofdailyenergyexpenditureinpregnantandnonpregnantwomenusingawristworntriaxialaccelerometer
AT kongychen estimationofdailyenergyexpenditureinpregnantandnonpregnantwomenusingawristworntriaxialaccelerometer
AT marielof estimationofdailyenergyexpenditureinpregnantandnonpregnantwomenusingawristworntriaxialaccelerometer
AT lesbluck estimationofdailyenergyexpenditureinpregnantandnonpregnantwomenusingawristworntriaxialaccelerometer
AT jeremypomeroy estimationofdailyenergyexpenditureinpregnantandnonpregnantwomenusingawristworntriaxialaccelerometer
AT nicholasjwareham estimationofdailyenergyexpenditureinpregnantandnonpregnantwomenusingawristworntriaxialaccelerometer
AT ulfekelund estimationofdailyenergyexpenditureinpregnantandnonpregnantwomenusingawristworntriaxialaccelerometer
AT sørenbrage estimationofdailyenergyexpenditureinpregnantandnonpregnantwomenusingawristworntriaxialaccelerometer
AT paulwfranks estimationofdailyenergyexpenditureinpregnantandnonpregnantwomenusingawristworntriaxialaccelerometer
_version_ 1716813984617725952