PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To compare the estimation of time spent on 4 categories of physical activity intensity (sedentary behaviour, light physical activity, moderate physical activity, and vigorous physical activity) between a motion sensor and a heart rate monitor during a stroke outpatient rehabilitation session.
METHODS: A multicentre cross-sectional observational study.
METHODS: Participants with stroke (> 6 months) undergoing outpatient rehabilitation sessions.
METHODS: Participants wore the SenseWear Armband motion sensor and the Polar H10 heart rate monitor during 2 rehabilitation sessions. The times estimated by each device were compared using a generalized linear mixed model and post-hoc tests.
RESULTS: Ninety-nine participants from 29 clinics were recruited and data from 146 sessions were included in the analysis. The estimated times depended on the devices and the physical activity intensity category (F = 135, p < 0.05). The motion sensor estimated more time spent in sedentary behaviour and less time spent in moderate physical activity and vigorous physical activity than the heart rate monitor.
CONCLUSIONS: The motion sensor and heart rate monitor provide different estimates of physical activity intensity during stroke rehabilitation. Further research is needed to establish the most appropriate device for each physical activity category.
METHODS: A multicentre cross-sectional observational study.
METHODS: Participants with stroke (> 6 months) undergoing outpatient rehabilitation sessions.
METHODS: Participants wore the SenseWear Armband motion sensor and the Polar H10 heart rate monitor during 2 rehabilitation sessions. The times estimated by each device were compared using a generalized linear mixed model and post-hoc tests.
RESULTS: Ninety-nine participants from 29 clinics were recruited and data from 146 sessions were included in the analysis. The estimated times depended on the devices and the physical activity intensity category (F = 135, p < 0.05). The motion sensor estimated more time spent in sedentary behaviour and less time spent in moderate physical activity and vigorous physical activity than the heart rate monitor.
CONCLUSIONS: The motion sensor and heart rate monitor provide different estimates of physical activity intensity during stroke rehabilitation. Further research is needed to establish the most appropriate device for each physical activity category.
摘要：
目的：比较4类体力活动强度（久坐行为，轻微的身体活动，适度的体力活动,和剧烈的身体活动）在中风门诊康复期间，运动传感器和心率监测器之间。
方法：一项多中心横断面观察性研究。
方法：接受门诊康复治疗的中风患者（>6个月）。
方法：参与者在2次康复期间佩戴SenseWear臂章运动传感器和PolarH10心率监测器。使用广义线性混合模型和事后检验比较每个设备估计的时间。
结果：招募了来自29个诊所的99名参与者，146个疗程的数据被纳入分析。估计的时间取决于设备和身体活动强度类别（F=135，p<0.05）。与心率监测器相比，运动传感器估计在久坐行为中花费的时间更多，而在适度的身体活动和剧烈的身体活动中花费的时间更少。
结论：运动传感器和心率监测器在中风康复期间提供了对身体活动强度的不同估计。需要进一步的研究来为每个身体活动类别建立最合适的设备。
方法：一项多中心横断面观察性研究。
方法：接受门诊康复治疗的中风患者（>6个月）。
方法：参与者在2次康复期间佩戴SenseWear臂章运动传感器和PolarH10心率监测器。使用广义线性混合模型和事后检验比较每个设备估计的时间。
结果：招募了来自29个诊所的99名参与者，146个疗程的数据被纳入分析。估计的时间取决于设备和身体活动强度类别（F=135，p<0.05）。与心率监测器相比，运动传感器估计在久坐行为中花费的时间更多，而在适度的身体活动和剧烈的身体活动中花费的时间更少。
结论：运动传感器和心率监测器在中风康复期间提供了对身体活动强度的不同估计。需要进一步的研究来为每个身体活动类别建立最合适的设备。
