+44 (0)1509 263171
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title: ||Qualitative feasibility of using three accelerometers with 2-3-year-old children and both parents|
|Authors: ||Costa, Silvia|
Barber, Sally E.
Griffiths, Paula L.
Clemes, Stacy A.
|Keywords: ||ActiGraph GT3X+|
|Issue Date: ||2013|
|Publisher: ||Taylor and Francis / © AAHPERD|
|Citation: ||COSTA, S. ... et al, 2013. Qualitative feasibility of using three accelerometers with 2-3-year-old children and both parents. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84 (3), pp. 295 - 304.|
|Abstract: ||This study assessed mothers' opinions about the feasibility and acceptability of using the ActiGraph GT3X+, Actiheart, and activPAL3 with their 2- to 3-year-old children, as well as with themselves and their husbands/partners, for an 8-day period. Method: Six focus groups were run with Pakistani and White British mothers (n = 17), in English or Urdu, at Children's Centers in Bradford, United Kingdom. Each accelerometer was shown to the mothers while its characteristics and wearing procedures were explained. Mothers were then asked about their opinion on the feasibility of use with their toddlers, themselves, and husbands/partners, as well as their monitor preference. Data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed through thematic analysis. Results: The ActiGraph was the most preferred accelerometer for use with children, while the Actiheart was the least favorable. The ActiGraph was also the most preferred accelerometer for use with both mothers and fathers. Main issues raised included unsuitability of the Actiheart for fathers due to chest hair, discomfort due to the large size of the activPAL3 in relation to children's thighs, and children pulling off the Actiheart or tampering with the device if its presence was noticed (ActiGraph/Actiheart). Conclusion: The most preferred/accepted accelerometer overall was the ActiGraph GT3X+ for both children and parents. Issues raised with the devices have potential to impact recruitment and compliance rates of studies targeting this population, which highlights the importance of assessing the feasibility/acceptability of different devices with the target population ahead of planning research involving physical activity measurement.|
|Description: ||This article is closed access.|
|Sponsor: ||The first author is funded by a doctoral studentship from the School
of Sport, Exercise, and Health Sciences at Loughborough
University. This article presents independent research commissioned
by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under
the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and
Care (CLAHRC) program for Leeds, York, and Bradford, UK.|
|Publisher Link: ||http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2013.812002|
|Appears in Collections:||Closed Access (Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences)|
Files associated with this item: