Cross-sectional survey on researchers' experience in using accelerometers in health-related studies

Birte Marie Albrecht; Fabian Tristan Flaßkamp; Annemarie Koster; Bjoern M Eskofier; Karin Bammann

doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2021-001286

Cross-sectional survey on researchers' experience in using accelerometers in health-related studies

BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2022 May 9;8(2):e001286. doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2021-001286. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Birte Marie Albrecht^{1

2}, Fabian Tristan Flaßkamp^{1

2}, Annemarie Koster³, Bjoern M Eskofier⁴, Karin Bammann^{1

2}

Affiliations

¹ Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research (IPP), University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
² Leibniz ScienceCampus Digital Public Health, Bremen, Germany.
³ Department of Social Medicine, CAPHRI, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
⁴ Department Artificial Intelligence in Biomedical Engineering, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuernberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Abstract

Objectives: Accelerometers are widely applied in health studies, but lack of standardisation regarding device placement, sampling and data processing hampers comparability between studies. The objectives of this study were to assess how accelerometers are applied in health-related research and problems with accelerometer hardware and software encountered by researchers.

Methods: Researchers applying accelerometry in a health context were invited to a cross-sectional web-based survey (August 2020-September 2020). The questionnaire included quantitative questions regarding the application of accelerometers and qualitative questions on encountered hardware and software problems. Descriptive statistics were calculated for quantitative data and content analysis was applied to qualitative data.

Results: In total, 116 health researchers were included in the study (response: 13.7%). The most used brand was ActiGraph (67.2%). Independently of brand, the main reason for choosing a device was that it was the standard in the field (57.1%-83.3%). In children and adolescent populations, sampling frequency was higher (mean: 73.3 Hz ±29.9 Hz vs 47.6 Hz ±29.4 Hz) and epoch length (15.0s±15.6s vs 30.1s±25.9s) and non-wear time (42.9 min ±23.7 min vs 65.3 min ±35.4 min) were shorter compared with adult populations. Content analysis revealed eight categories of hardware problems (battery problems, compliance issues, data loss, mechanical problems, electronic problems, sensor problems, lacking waterproofness, other problems) and five categories of software problems (lack of user-friendliness, limited possibilities, bugs, high computational burden, black box character).

Conclusions: The study confirms heterogeneity regarding accelerometer use in health-related research. Moreover, several hardware and software problems were documented. Both aspects must be tackled to increase validity, practicability and comparability of research.

Keywords: accelerometer; epidemiology; measurement; physical activity; research.