Background: Previous research indicates that Physical Activity (PA) can help people with Parkinson’s (PwP) to manage their symptoms but that they are less active than people of the same age and in relation to PA guidelines. Common PA measures include questionnaires or accelerometers. Accelerometers are not routinely used in clinical services. Little research has been conducted on PwP perceived feasibility and utility of using body-worn accelerometers. Objective: This quantitative, observational study assessed the concurrent validity, feasibility and perceived utility of a questionnaire and body-worn accelerometer to capture PA in people with newly diagnosed Parkinson’s. Methods: Twenty-four participants were recruited from a service for newly diagnosed PwP at University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, UK. The study was conducted remotely by postal, telephone and email correspondence. Participants used a wrist-worn accelerometer (GENEActiv™) for one week, completed the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ-S) about that week’s PA, and completed a Likert-style utility questionnaire on perceived feasibility and utility of using these PA measures. Energy expenditure (metabolic equivalents – METs) calculated from the PA measures were compared using Spearman’s correlation. Descriptive statistics summarised PA levels in relation to WHO guidelines and feasibility of measures based on responses to utility questionnaire. Results: The sample (n=24, 17 males, 7 females; mean age 72.4 years, SD ± 9.7; mean disease duration 1 years) showed a significant moderate correlation between total weekly energy expenditure calculated from the PA measures (rs = 0.55, n = 24, p =.003). Overall, the sample were above guidelines for moderate PA (IPAQ-S mean 453 mins per week, range 0 – 3010, SD ± 718); GENEActiv™ mean 265 mins per week, range 1 - 794, SD ± 217). Participants agreed ‘the PA questionnaire was easy to fill in’ (median response 2 = agree, IQR 2) but disagreed with the statement ‘I would rather fill in a PA questionnaire about the previous week than wear the sensor for a week’ (median response 4 = disagree, IQR 2). Conclusion: Findings suggest it is feasible to introduce a measure of PA to Parkinson’s patients remotely. There was wide variation between the measures when determining levels of moderate PA. Validation of the GENEActiv™ device against gold standard measures of PA intensity in PwP is needed to establish criterion validity. Impact: This work contributes to the understanding of patient experience and preferences in remote monitoring of PA and the use of these measures to plan service provision to support PA.
| Published in | International Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy (Volume 9, Issue 1) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijnpt.20230901.11 |
| Page(s) | 1-9 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Parkinson’s, Physical Activity, Accelerometer, Physical Activity Questionnaire
| [1] | S. H. J. Keus, L. B. Oude Nijhuis, M. J. Nijkrake, B. R. Bloem, and M. Munneke, “Improving Community Healthcare for Patients with Parkinson’s Disease: The Dutch Model,” Parkinsons. Dis., vol. 2012, pp. 1–7, 2012. |
| [2] | S. Keus et al., “European Physiotherapy Guideline for Parkinson’s Disease,” The Netherlands, 2014. |
| [3] | A. S. Vojciechowski, T. G. G. Zotz, A. P. C. Loureiro, and V. L. Israel, “The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as Applied to Parkinson’s Disease: A Literature Review,” Adv. Park. Dis., vol. 05, no. 02, pp. 29–40, 2016. |
| [4] | C. Bouchard and R. J. Shepherd, “Physical activity, fitness, and health: the model and key concepts.,” in Physical activity, fitness, and health: International proceedings and consensus statement, C. Bouchard, R. J. Shepherd, and T. Stephens, Eds. Champaign: Human Kinetics, 1994, pp. 77–88. |
| [5] | World Health Organization, “Global Recommendations for Physical Activity for Health. 65 years and above.,” 2011. [Online]. Available: https://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/physical-activity-recommendations-65years.pdf?ua=1. [Accessed: 30-Jan-2019]. |
| [6] | J. E. Ahlskog, “Does vigorous exercise have a neuroprotective effect in Parkinson disease?,” Neurology, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 288–294, 2011. |
| [7] | G. M. Petzinger, B. E. Fisher, S. McEwen, J. A. Beeler, J. P. Walsh, and M. W. Jakowec, “Cognitive Circuitry in Parkinson’s Disease,” Lancet Neurol., vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 716–726, 2013. |
| [8] | N. M. van der Kolk and L. A. King, “Effects of exercise on mobility in people with Parkinson’s disease,” Mov. Disord., vol. 28, no. 11, 2013. |
| [9] | G. Abbruzzese, R. Marchese, L. Avanzino, and E. Pelosin, “Rehabilitation for Parkinson’s disease: Current outlook and future challenges,” Park. Relat. Disord., vol. 22, pp. S60–S64, 2016. |
| [10] | M. Van Nimwegen et al., “Physical inactivity in Parkinson’s disease,” J. Neurol., vol. 258, no. 12, pp. 2214–2221, 2011. |
| [11] | S. Lord, A. Godfrey, B. Galna, D. Mhiripiri, D. Burn, and L. Rochester, “Ambulatory activity in incident Parkinson’s: More than meets the eye?,” J. Neurol., vol. 260, no. 12, pp. 2964–2972, 2013. |
| [12] | S. M. Hulbert and V. A. Goodwin, “‘Mind the gap’ — a scoping review of long term, physical, self-management in Parkinson’s,” Physiother. (United Kingdom), vol. 107, pp. 88–99, 2020. |
| [13] | S. Mantri, S. Wood, J. E. Duda, and J. F. Morley, “Comparing self-reported and objective monitoring of physical activity in Parkinson disease,” Park. Relat. Disord., vol. 67, pp. 56–59, 2019. |
| [14] | L. G. Sylvia, E. E. Bernstein, J. L. Hubbard, L. Keating, and E. J. Anderson, “Practical guide to measuring physical activity,” J. Acad. Nutr. Diet., vol. 114, no. 2, pp. 199–208, 2014. |
| [15] | W. Brewer, B. T. Swanson, and A. Ortiz, “Validity of Fitbit’s active minutes as compared with a research-grade accelerometer and self-reported measures,” BMJ Open Sport Exerc. Med., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2017. |
| [16] | V. A. J. Block, E. Pitsch, P. Tahir, B. A. C. Cree, D. D. Allen, and J. M. Gelfand, “Remote Physical Activity Monitoring in Neurological Disease: A Systematic Review.,” PLoS One, vol. 11, no. 4, p. e0154335, 2016. |
| [17] | N. Wendel et al., “Accuracy of Activity Trackers in Parkinson’s Disease : Should We Prescribe Them?,” Phys. Ther., vol. 98, no. 8, pp. 705–714, 2018. |
| [18] | M. Jetté, K. Sidney, and G. Blümchen, “Metabolic equivalents (METS) in exercise testing, exercise prescription, and evaluation of functional capacity,” Clin. Cardiol., vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 555–565, Aug. 1990. |
| [19] | J. T. Cavanaugh, T. D. Ellis, G. M. Earhart, M. P. Ford, K. B. Foreman, and L. E. Dibble, “Capturing Ambulatory Activity Decline in Parkinson’s Disease,” J. Neurol. Phys. Ther., vol. 36, pp. 51–57, 2012. |
| [20] | J. T. Cavanaugh, T. D. Ellis, G. M. Earhart, M. P. Ford, K. B. Foreman, and L. E. Dibble, “Toward Understanding Ambulatory Activity Decline in Parkinson’s Disease,” Phys. Ther., vol. 95, no. 8, pp. 1142–1150, 2015. |
| [21] | J. M. Fisher, N. Y. Hammerla, T. Ploetz, P. Andras, L. Rochester, and R. W. Walker, “Unsupervised home monitoring of Parkinson’s disease motor symptoms using body-worn accelerometers,” Park. Relat. Disord. (no pagination), 2016, vol. Date of Pu, 2016. |
| [22] | The IPAQ Group, “IPAQ Scoring Protocol,” 2005. [Online]. Available: https://sites.google.com/site/theipaq/scoring-protocol. [Accessed: 03-Mar-2019]. |
| [23] | Health Research Authority, “UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research,” London, 2017. |
| [24] | W. R. G. Gibb and A. J. Lees, “The relevance of the Lewy body to the pathogenesis of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease.,” J. Neurol. Neurosurgery, Psychiatry., vol. 51, pp. 745–752, 1988. |
| [25] | C. B. Terwee, L. B. Mokkink, M. N. M. van Poppel, M. J. M. Chinapaw, W. van Mechelen, and H. C. W. de Vet, “Qualitative Attributes and Measurement Properties of Physical Activity Questionnaires,” Sport. Med., vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 525–537, Jul. 2010. |
| [26] | C. J. Ferguson, “An Effect Size Primer: A Guide for Clinicians and Researchers,” Prof. Psychol. Res. Pract., vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 532–538, 2009. |
| [27] | Cohen J., “A Power Primer,” Psychol. Bull., vol. 112, no. 1, pp. 155–159, 1992. |
| [28] | C. L. Craig et al., “International Physical Activity Questionnaire: 12-Country Reliability and Validity,” Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc., pp. 1381–1395, 2003. |
| [29] | M. N. M. van Poppel, M. J. M. Chinapaw, L. B. Mokkink, W. van Mechelen, and C. B. Terwee, “Physical Activity Questionnaires for Adults: A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties,” Sport. Med., vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 565–600, Jul. 2010. |
| [30] | P. H. Lee, D. J. Macfarlane, T. H. Lam, and S. M. Stewart, “Validity of the international physical activity questionnaire short form (IPAQ-SF): A systematic review,” Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act., vol. 8, no. 1, p. 115, 2011. |
| [31] | E. L. Healey, K. D. Allen, K. Bennell, J. L. Bowden, J. G. Quicke, and R. Smith, “Self-Report Measures of Physical Activity,” Arthritis Care Res., vol. 72, no. S10, pp. 717–730, 2020. |
| [32] | E. De Giovannini et al., “Continuous 7-days activity tracking in patients with parkinson disease: A 1-year continuative multidisciplinary rehabilitation,” Gait Posture, vol. 66, pp. S13–S14, 2018. |
| [33] | C. Tomasi et al., “7-Days actigraphy in patients with Parkinson disease: a 2-years follow-up,” Gait Posture, vol. 74, pp. 36–37, 2019. |
| [34] | Activinsights, “GENEActiv Original,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.activinsights.com/actigraphy/geneactiv-original/. [Accessed: 30-Mar-2020]. |
| [35] | G. Plasqui and K. R. Westerterp, “Physical Activity Assessment with Accelerometers: An Evaluation Against Doubly Labeled Water,” Obesity, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 2371–2379, 2007. |
| [36] | A.. Chomistek et al., “Physical Activity Assessment with the ActiGraph and Doubly Labeled Water,” Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc., vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1935–1944, 2017. |
| [37] | M. Hagströmer, P. Oja, and M. Sjöström, “The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ): a study of concurrent and construct validity,” Public Health Nutr., vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 755–762, 2006. |
| [38] | MRC Epidemiology Unit, “Diet, Anthropometry and Physical Activity (DAPA) Measurement Toolkit,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://beta.measurement-toolkit.org. [Accessed: 07-Jan-2023]. |
| [39] | J. M. Fisher, N. Y. Hammerla, L. Rochester, P. Andras, and R. W. Walker, “Body-Worn Sensors in Parkinson’s Disease: Evaluating Their Acceptability to Patients,” Telemed. e-Health, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 63–69, 2016. |
| [40] | D. W. Esliger, A. V. Rowlands, T. L. Hurst, M. Catt, P. Murray, and R. G. Eston, “Validation of the GENEA accelerometer,” Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1085–1093, 2011. |
| [41] | M. L. Dontje et al., “Quantifying daily physical activity and determinants in sedentary patients with Parkinson’s disease,” Park. Relat. Disord., vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 878–882, 2013. |
| [42] | IBM Corporation, “IBM SPSS.” 2016. |
| [43] | R. P. Troiano, J. J. McClain, R. J. Brychta, and K. Y. Chen, “Evolution of accelerometer methods for physical activity research,” Br. J. Sports Med., vol. 48, no. 13, pp. 1019–1023, 2014. |
| [44] | R. M. Lamont, H. L. Daniel, C. L. Payne, and S. G. Brauer, “Accuracy of wearable physical activity trackers in people with Parkinson’s disease.,” Gait Posture, vol. 63, pp. 104–108, 2018. |
| [45] | B. Reeder and A. David, “Health at hand: A systematic review of smart watch uses for health and wellness,” J. Biomed. Inform., vol. 63, pp. 269–276, 2016. |
| [46] | M. Suzuki, H. Mitoma, and M. Yoneyama, “Quantitative Analysis of Motor Status in Parkinson’s Disease Using Wearable Devices: From Methodological Considerations to Problems in Clinical Applications,” Parkinsons. Dis., vol. 2017, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2017. |
| [47] | M. B. Wallén, H. Nero, E. Franzén, and M. Hagströmer, “Comparison of two accelerometer filter settings in individuals with Parkinson’s disease,” Physiol. Meas., vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 2287–2296, 2014. |
| [48] | S. S. Paul et al., “Obtaining Reliable Estimates of Ambulatory Physical Activity in People with Parkinson’s Disease,” J. Parkinsons. Dis., vol. 6, pp. 301–305, 2016. |
| [49] | R. Rzewnicki, Y. Vanden Auweele, and I. De Bourdeaudhuij, “Addressing overreporting on the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) telephone survey with a population sample,” Public Health Nutr., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 299–305, 2003. |
| [50] | A. Bauman et al., “Progress and Pitfalls in the Use of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) for Adult Physical Activity Surveillance,” J. Phys. Act. Heal., vol. 6, no. s1, pp. 5–8, 2009. |
| [51] | S. M. Dyrstad, B. H. Hansen, I. M. Holme, and S. A. Anderssen, “Comparison of self-reported versus accelerometer-measured physical activity,” Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 99–106, 2014. |
| [52] | S. W. Lee et al., “Comparison of self-reported and accelerometer-assessed measurements of physical activity according to socio-demographic characteristics in Korean adults,” Epidemiol. Health, vol. 40, p. e2018060, 2018. |
| [53] | A. Hurtig-Wennlf, M. Hagstromer, and L. A. Olsson, “The International Physical Activity Questionnaire modified for the elderly: Aspects of validity and feasibility,” Public Health Nutr., vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 1847–1854, 2010. |
| [54] | M. E. Rosenberger, W. L. Haskell, F. Albinali, S. Mota, J. Nawyn, and S. Intille, “Estimating activity and sedentary behavior from an accelerometer on the hip or wrist,” Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 964–975, 2013. |
| [55] | D. Arvidsson et al., “Re-examination of accelerometer data processing and calibration for the assessment of physical activity intensity,” Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sport., vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 1442–1452, 2019. |
| [56] | P. S. Freedson and D. John, “Comment on ‘estimating activity and sedentary behavior from an accelerometer on the hip and wrist,’” Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 962–963, 2013. |
| [57] | Ž. Pedišić and A. Bauman, “Accelerometer-based measures in physical activity surveillance: current practices and issues,” British Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 49. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Association of Sport and Exercise Medicine, pp. 219–223, 2015. |
| [58] | E. Rovini, C. Maremmani, and F. Cavallo, “How wearable sensors can support parkinson’s disease diagnosis and treatment: A systematic review,” Front. Neurosci., vol. 11, no. OCT, 2017. |
| [59] | H. Son, W. S. Park, and H. Kim, “Mobility monitoring using smart technologies for Parkinson’s disease in free-living environment,” Collegian, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 549–560, 2018. |
APA Style
Jonathan Gilby, Camille Carroll, Jonathan Marsden. (2023). Measures of Physical Activity in Parkinson’s Disease (MAPD). International Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy, 9(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnpt.20230901.11
ACS Style
Jonathan Gilby; Camille Carroll; Jonathan Marsden. Measures of Physical Activity in Parkinson’s Disease (MAPD). Int. J. Neurol. Phys. Ther. 2023, 9(1), 1-9. doi: 10.11648/j.ijnpt.20230901.11
AMA Style
Jonathan Gilby, Camille Carroll, Jonathan Marsden. Measures of Physical Activity in Parkinson’s Disease (MAPD). Int J Neurol Phys Ther. 2023;9(1):1-9. doi: 10.11648/j.ijnpt.20230901.11
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijnpt.20230901.11,
author = {Jonathan Gilby and Camille Carroll and Jonathan Marsden},
title = {Measures of Physical Activity in Parkinson’s Disease (MAPD)},
journal = {International Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy},
volume = {9},
number = {1},
pages = {1-9},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijnpt.20230901.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnpt.20230901.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijnpt.20230901.11},
abstract = {Background: Previous research indicates that Physical Activity (PA) can help people with Parkinson’s (PwP) to manage their symptoms but that they are less active than people of the same age and in relation to PA guidelines. Common PA measures include questionnaires or accelerometers. Accelerometers are not routinely used in clinical services. Little research has been conducted on PwP perceived feasibility and utility of using body-worn accelerometers. Objective: This quantitative, observational study assessed the concurrent validity, feasibility and perceived utility of a questionnaire and body-worn accelerometer to capture PA in people with newly diagnosed Parkinson’s. Methods: Twenty-four participants were recruited from a service for newly diagnosed PwP at University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, UK. The study was conducted remotely by postal, telephone and email correspondence. Participants used a wrist-worn accelerometer (GENEActiv™) for one week, completed the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ-S) about that week’s PA, and completed a Likert-style utility questionnaire on perceived feasibility and utility of using these PA measures. Energy expenditure (metabolic equivalents – METs) calculated from the PA measures were compared using Spearman’s correlation. Descriptive statistics summarised PA levels in relation to WHO guidelines and feasibility of measures based on responses to utility questionnaire. Results: The sample (n=24, 17 males, 7 females; mean age 72.4 years, SD ± 9.7; mean disease duration 1 years) showed a significant moderate correlation between total weekly energy expenditure calculated from the PA measures (rs = 0.55, n = 24, p =.003). Overall, the sample were above guidelines for moderate PA (IPAQ-S mean 453 mins per week, range 0 – 3010, SD ± 718); GENEActiv™ mean 265 mins per week, range 1 - 794, SD ± 217). Participants agreed ‘the PA questionnaire was easy to fill in’ (median response 2 = agree, IQR 2) but disagreed with the statement ‘I would rather fill in a PA questionnaire about the previous week than wear the sensor for a week’ (median response 4 = disagree, IQR 2). Conclusion: Findings suggest it is feasible to introduce a measure of PA to Parkinson’s patients remotely. There was wide variation between the measures when determining levels of moderate PA. Validation of the GENEActiv™ device against gold standard measures of PA intensity in PwP is needed to establish criterion validity. Impact: This work contributes to the understanding of patient experience and preferences in remote monitoring of PA and the use of these measures to plan service provision to support PA.},
year = {2023}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Measures of Physical Activity in Parkinson’s Disease (MAPD) AU - Jonathan Gilby AU - Camille Carroll AU - Jonathan Marsden Y1 - 2023/04/27 PY - 2023 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnpt.20230901.11 DO - 10.11648/j.ijnpt.20230901.11 T2 - International Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy JF - International Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy JO - International Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy SP - 1 EP - 9 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2575-1778 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnpt.20230901.11 AB - Background: Previous research indicates that Physical Activity (PA) can help people with Parkinson’s (PwP) to manage their symptoms but that they are less active than people of the same age and in relation to PA guidelines. Common PA measures include questionnaires or accelerometers. Accelerometers are not routinely used in clinical services. Little research has been conducted on PwP perceived feasibility and utility of using body-worn accelerometers. Objective: This quantitative, observational study assessed the concurrent validity, feasibility and perceived utility of a questionnaire and body-worn accelerometer to capture PA in people with newly diagnosed Parkinson’s. Methods: Twenty-four participants were recruited from a service for newly diagnosed PwP at University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, UK. The study was conducted remotely by postal, telephone and email correspondence. Participants used a wrist-worn accelerometer (GENEActiv™) for one week, completed the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ-S) about that week’s PA, and completed a Likert-style utility questionnaire on perceived feasibility and utility of using these PA measures. Energy expenditure (metabolic equivalents – METs) calculated from the PA measures were compared using Spearman’s correlation. Descriptive statistics summarised PA levels in relation to WHO guidelines and feasibility of measures based on responses to utility questionnaire. Results: The sample (n=24, 17 males, 7 females; mean age 72.4 years, SD ± 9.7; mean disease duration 1 years) showed a significant moderate correlation between total weekly energy expenditure calculated from the PA measures (rs = 0.55, n = 24, p =.003). Overall, the sample were above guidelines for moderate PA (IPAQ-S mean 453 mins per week, range 0 – 3010, SD ± 718); GENEActiv™ mean 265 mins per week, range 1 - 794, SD ± 217). Participants agreed ‘the PA questionnaire was easy to fill in’ (median response 2 = agree, IQR 2) but disagreed with the statement ‘I would rather fill in a PA questionnaire about the previous week than wear the sensor for a week’ (median response 4 = disagree, IQR 2). Conclusion: Findings suggest it is feasible to introduce a measure of PA to Parkinson’s patients remotely. There was wide variation between the measures when determining levels of moderate PA. Validation of the GENEActiv™ device against gold standard measures of PA intensity in PwP is needed to establish criterion validity. Impact: This work contributes to the understanding of patient experience and preferences in remote monitoring of PA and the use of these measures to plan service provision to support PA. VL - 9 IS - 1 ER -
Information
Email: