| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
Comparison of Commonly Used Placement Sites for Activity Monitoring
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: mary.p.rapp{at}uth.tmc.edu.
Background: No accepted standard exists to evaluate nonsleep-related activity in nursing facility residents where monitors are variously placed at the ankle, waist, wrist, thigh, or embedded in sheeting and set to record activity frequency. Objectives: To determine optimal placement of activity monitors by site—at the ankle, waist, or wrist for nursing facility residents. Methods: Nursing facility residents (N = 16) wore accelerometers at three sites: the nondominant ankle, waist, and wrist, while recording activity in three modes: frequency, duration, and intensity. Results: The natural log activity mean for each mode by site and time revealed no significant differences between the three sites for activity intensity, F(2, 62.78) = .15, p = .86; activity duration, F(2, 69.84) = .50, p = .61; and activity frequency, F(2, 70.04) = 1.25, p = .29. There were no significant site–time interactions. The natural log activity by site and mode indicated no significant differences by site for the 24-hr mean, F(2, 107.64) = .20, p = .82; activity median, F(2, 100.42) = .47, p = .63; and activity standard deviation, F(2, 108.69) = 1.5, p = .23. A significant difference was seen by site for the acceleration index, F(2, 106.32) = 9.57, p < .001. No significant site–mode interactions were found. Conclusions: Similarity between ankle, waist, or wrist sites when measuring activity by various modes, frequency, duration, or intensity, suggests the monitors measure nonsleep-related activity equally well at any of the sites.
First published on July 17, 2009 |
|
|||||
 |
|
|
 |
|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
