Contributions
Abstract: P798
Type: Poster
Abstract Category: RIMS - Exercise
Background: Current descriptive epidemiology rates of physical activity (PA) levels in people with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) rely heavily on recall-based measurements of PA. Healthy population literature suggests these may lack resolution and places a strong emphasis on the use of objective PA measures in large scale cohort and intervention studies. At present, there is no gold standard objective PA measurement tool for use in MS literature. It is also unclear which aspect of PA MS researchers should be reporting.
Objective:
1) To identify the objective PA measurement tools and outputs that are most commonly used within Multiple Sclerosis literature and
2) To determine which PA measurement tools and outputs should be used in future MS and PA research.
Methods: A systematic search strategy was conducted on 8 databases (2000-2016) using keywords associated with MS and PA. This review forms part of a more detailed systematic review and meta-analysis that aims to establish current physical activity levels in pwMS. Once the search was complete, information on objective PA devices used and PA outputs reported were extracted and narratively described.
Results: This review includes 32 papers of which there are 3 intervention studies, 3 reliability/validity studies and 26 cohort/case control studies. Uni-axial accelerometers were the most popular objective PA measurement tool in this review (68%). Pedometers (14%) and multi-sensor systems (3%) were the second and third most common devices used. PA outputs included activity counts per day, steps per day, energy expenditure (kilocalories) per day, minutes of moderate-vigorous PA (MVPA), minutes of light PA, minutes of sedentary behaviour and daily dynamic activity. Both activity counts per day (n=21 studies) and steps per day (n=11 studies) were most commonly used representing 78% of the PA output in current literature.
Conclusion: Uni-axial accelerometers and pedometers are the most popular PA measurement tools used in MS literature. However, these tools may not be the most accurate measure of PA and other options including multi-sensor systems should be investigated. Additionally, PA is widely being expressed as activity counts and step counts per day. Single metric description of PA may not be accurate. Attention to capturing the duration, frequency, intensity and energy expended during daily PA is warranted.
Disclosure:
Bláthín Casey: Nothing to disclose
Prof Susan Coote: Nothing to disclose
Prof Alan Donnelly: Nothing to disclose
Abstract: P798
Type: Poster
Abstract Category: RIMS - Exercise
Background: Current descriptive epidemiology rates of physical activity (PA) levels in people with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) rely heavily on recall-based measurements of PA. Healthy population literature suggests these may lack resolution and places a strong emphasis on the use of objective PA measures in large scale cohort and intervention studies. At present, there is no gold standard objective PA measurement tool for use in MS literature. It is also unclear which aspect of PA MS researchers should be reporting.
Objective:
1) To identify the objective PA measurement tools and outputs that are most commonly used within Multiple Sclerosis literature and
2) To determine which PA measurement tools and outputs should be used in future MS and PA research.
Methods: A systematic search strategy was conducted on 8 databases (2000-2016) using keywords associated with MS and PA. This review forms part of a more detailed systematic review and meta-analysis that aims to establish current physical activity levels in pwMS. Once the search was complete, information on objective PA devices used and PA outputs reported were extracted and narratively described.
Results: This review includes 32 papers of which there are 3 intervention studies, 3 reliability/validity studies and 26 cohort/case control studies. Uni-axial accelerometers were the most popular objective PA measurement tool in this review (68%). Pedometers (14%) and multi-sensor systems (3%) were the second and third most common devices used. PA outputs included activity counts per day, steps per day, energy expenditure (kilocalories) per day, minutes of moderate-vigorous PA (MVPA), minutes of light PA, minutes of sedentary behaviour and daily dynamic activity. Both activity counts per day (n=21 studies) and steps per day (n=11 studies) were most commonly used representing 78% of the PA output in current literature.
Conclusion: Uni-axial accelerometers and pedometers are the most popular PA measurement tools used in MS literature. However, these tools may not be the most accurate measure of PA and other options including multi-sensor systems should be investigated. Additionally, PA is widely being expressed as activity counts and step counts per day. Single metric description of PA may not be accurate. Attention to capturing the duration, frequency, intensity and energy expended during daily PA is warranted.
Disclosure:
Bláthín Casey: Nothing to disclose
Prof Susan Coote: Nothing to disclose
Prof Alan Donnelly: Nothing to disclose