Comparison of commonly used placement sites for activity monitoring

Biol Res Nurs. 2010 Jan;11(3):302-9. doi: 10.1177/1099800409337526. Epub 2009 Jul 17.

Abstract

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.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study

MeSH terms

  • Humans
  • Inpatients*
  • Monitoring, Physiologic / instrumentation*
  • Monitoring, Physiologic / methods
  • Movement*
  • Nursing Homes*