Objective measurement of physical activity and sedentary behaviour: review with new data

Objective methods are being used increasingly for the quantification of the amount of physical activity, intensity of physical activity and amount of sedentary behaviour in children. The accelerometer is currently the objective method of choice. In this review we address the advantages of objective measurement compared with more traditional subjective methods, notably the avoidance of bias, greater confidence in the amount of activity and sedentary behaviour measured, and improved ability to relate variation in physical activity and sedentary behaviour to variation in health outcomes. We also consider unresolved practical issues in paediatric accelerometry by critically reviewing the existing evidence and by providing new evidence.sch_phy1. Strong WB, Malina RM, Blimkie CJR, et al. Evidence-based physical activity for school-age youth. J Pediatr 2005;146:732-7. 2. Department of Health. At least five a week. Evidence on physical activity and its relationship to health. A report from the Chief Medical Officer. London: Department of Health, 2004 http://tinyurl.com/332mf (accessed 4 April 2008). 3. Reilly JJ, Coyle J, Kelly LA, et al. An objective method for measurement of sedentary behavior in 3-4 year-olds. Obes Res 2003;11:1155-8. 4. Biddle SJ, Gorely T, Marshall JJ, et al. Physical activity and sedentary behaviours in youth issues and controversies. J Roy Soc Health 2004;124:29-33. 5. De Vries SI, Bakker I, Hopman-Rock M, et al. Clinimetric review of motion sensors in children and adolescents. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;56:670-80. 6. Rowlands AV. Accelerometer assessment of physical activity in children: an update.Pediatr Exerc Sci 2007;19:252-66. 7. Oliver M, Schofield GM, Kilt GS. Physical activity in pre-schoolers: understanding prevalence and measurement issues. Sports Med 2007;32:1045-70. 8. Corder K, Brage S, Ekelund U. Accelerometers and pedometers: methodology and clinical application. Curr Op Clin Nutr Metab Care 2007;10:597-603. 9. Ward DS, Evenson KR, Vaughn A, et al. Accelerometer use in physical activity: best practices and research recommendations. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005;37:s582-8. 10. Trost SG. State of the art reviews: measurement of physical activity in children and adolescents. Am J Lifestyle Medicine 2007;1:299-314. 11. Reilly JJ. Tackling the obesity epidemic: new approaches. Arch Dis Child 2006;91:724-6. 12. Caballero B, Clay T, Davis S, et al. Pathways: a school-based randomized controlled trial for the prevention of obesity in American Indian school children. Am J Clin Nutr 2003;78:1030-8. 13. Poustie VJ, Russell JE, Watling RM, et al. Oral protein-energy supplements for children with cystic fibrosis. Br Med J 2006;332:632-6. 14. Scottish Executive. Scottish health survey 2003: Summary of key findings. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive The Stationery Office, 2005. 15. Reilly JJ, Montgomery C, Jackson D, et al. Total energy expenditure and physical activity in young Scottish children: mixed longitudinal study. Lancet 2004;363:211-2. 16. Riddoch CJ, Mattocks C, Deere K, et al. Objective measures of levels and patterns of physical activity. Arch Dis Child 2007;92:963-7. 17. Ness AR, Leary SD, Mattocks C, et al. Objectively measured physical activity and fat mass in a large cohort of children. PLOS Med 2007;4:e97. 18. Mallam KM, Metcalf BS, Kirkby J, et al. Contribution of physical education to physical activity in primary school children: cross-sectional study. Br Med J 2003;327:592-3. 19. Metcalf B, Voss L, Jeffery A, et al. Physical activity cost of the school run: impact on school children of being driven to school. Br Med J 2004;329:832-3. 20. Reilly JJ, Kelly L, Montgomery C, et al. Physical activity to prevent obesity in young children: cluster randomised controlled trial. Br Med J 2006;333:1041-3. 21. Wareham NJ, van Sluis EMF, Ekelund U. Physical activity and obesity prevention: a review of the current evidence. Proc Nutr Soc 2005;64:229-47. 22. Andersen LB, Nacro M, Sardinha LB, et al. Physical activity and clustered cardiovascular risk in children. Lancet 2006;368:299-304. 23. Mutunga M, Gallagher AM, Boreham C, et al. Socio-economic differences in risk factors for obesity in adolescents in Northern Ireland. Int J Pediatr Obes 2006;1:114-9. 24. Broedersen NH, Steptoe A, Boniface DR, et al. Trends in physical activity and sedentary behaviour in adolescence: ethnic and socio-economic differences. Br J Sports Med 2007;41:140-4. 25. Kelly LA, Reilly JJ, Fisher A, et al. Effect of socio-economic status on objectively measured physical activity. Arch Dis Child 2006;91:35-8. 26. Voss LD, Metcalf BS, Jeffery AN, et al. Children's physical activity levels are not determined by socio-economic status. Obes Rev 2006;7(suppl 2):80. 27. Trayers T, Cooper AR, Riddoch CJ, et al. Do children from an inner city British school meet the recommended levels of physical activity? Arch B Child 2006;91:175-6. 28. Janz KF, Gilmore JM, Levy SM, et al. Physical activity and femoral neck bone strength during childhood: the Iowa Bone Development Study. Bone 2007;41:216-22. 29. Puyau MR, Adolph AL, Firoz AV, et al. Validation and calibration of activity monitors in children. Obes Res 2002;10:150-7. 30. Masse LC, Anderson CB, Mathews CE, et al. Accelerometer data reduction. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005;37:s544-5. 31. Bailey RC, Olson J, Pepper SL, et al. The level and tempo of children's physical activities: an observational study. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995;27:1033-41. 32. Cardon G, De Bourdeauhuij I. Comparison of pedometer and accelerometer measures of physical activity in pre-school children. Pediatr Exerc Sci 2007;19:205- 33. McKee DP, Boreham CAG, Murphy MH, et al. Validation of the Digiwalker pedometer for measuring physical activity in young children. Pediatr Exerc Sci 2005;17:345-52. 34. Rowlands AV, Powell SM, Humphries R, et al. The effect of accelerometer epoch on physical activity output measures. J Exerc Sci Fit 2006;4:52-8. 35. Nilsson A, Ekelund U, Yngve A, et al. Assessing physical activity among children with accelerometers using different time sampling intervals and placements. Pediatr Exerc Sci 2002;14:87-96. 36. Freedson PS, Sirard J, Debold E, et al. Calibration of the Computer Science Application (CSA) accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1997;29(suppl 1):S45. 37. Treuth MS, Schmitz K, Catellier DJ, et al. Defining accelerometer thresholds for activity intensities in adolescent girls. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004;36:1259-66. 38. Trost SG, Ward DS, Moorehead SM, et al. Validity of the CSA activity monitor in children. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998;30:629-33. 39. Ekelund U, Aman J, Westerterp K. Is the ARTEACC index a valid indicator of freeliving physical activity in adolescents ? Obes Res 2003;11:793-801. 40. Freedson P, Pober D, Janz KF. Calibration of accelerometer output for children. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005;37(suppl 11):s523-30. 41. Sirard JR, Trost SG, Pfeiffer KA, et al. Calibration and evaluation of an objective measure of physical activity in preschool children. J Phys Act Health 2005;3:324-36. 42. Mattocks C, Ness A, Leary SD, et al. Calibration of an accelerometer during freeliving activities in children. Int J Pediatr Obes 2007;2:218-27. 43. Penpraze V, Reilly JJ, MacLean CM, et al. Monitoring of physical activity in young children: how much is enough ? Pediatr Exerc Sci 2006;18:483-491.93pub555pub