↓ Skip to main content

Comparison between logbook-reported and objectively-assessed physical activity and sedentary time in breast cancer patients: an agreement study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Comparison between logbook-reported and objectively-assessed physical activity and sedentary time in breast cancer patients: an agreement study
Published in
BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13102-017-0072-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne-Sophie Mazzoni, Karin Nordin, Sveinung Berntsen, Ingrid Demmelmaier, Helena Igelström

Abstract

Increasing physical activity (PA) and decreasing sedentary time (ST) have important health effects among breast cancer patients, a growing population group. PA and sedentary behaviors are complex multi-dimensional behaviors and are challenging to monitor accurately. To date few studies have compared self-reports and objective measurement in assessing PA and ST in women undergoing breast cancer treatments. The aim of the present study was to compare self-reports and objective measures for assessing daily time spent in moderate-intensity physical activity (MPA), vigorous-intensity physical activity (VPA) and ST in women undergoing breast cancer treatments. Baseline data from 65 women with breast cancer scheduled to undergo adjuvant treatment was included. Daily time spent in MPA, VPA and ST was assessed by a study-specific logbook and the SenseWear Armband mini (SWA). The level of agreement between the two measurement methods was then determined by performing Bland-Altman plots with limits of agreements, and calculating Spearman's rank correlation coefficients. The mean difference between the logbook and SWA with limits of agreement was 14 (±102) minutes for MPA, 1 (±21) minute for VPA and -196 (±408) minutes for ST, respectively. The logbook reported an average of 34 and 50% higher values than the SWA for MPA and VPA, as well as an average of 27% lower values for ST (P < 0.05). The Spearman's rank correlation coefficients showed that the differences between the methods increased as the average amount of time spent in PA and ST increased (P < 0.01). The results imply that the two measurement methods have limited agreement and cannot be used interchangeably.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 12 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 10 22%
Sports and Recreations 8 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 15%
Computer Science 2 4%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 15 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 April 2017.
All research outputs
#17,885,520
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
#396
of 499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,925
of 309,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.