The Experts below are selected from a list of 55461 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Charlie Foster - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a validation study of the eurostat harmonised european time use study hetus Diary using wearable technology
BMC Public Health, 2019Co-Authors: Teresa Harms, Jonathan Gershuny, Aiden R Doherty, Emma Thomas, Karen Milton, Charlie FosterAbstract:The central aim was to examine the accuracy of the full range of daily activities recorded in self-report Time-Use diaries against data from two objective passive data collection devices (wearable camera and accelerometer) serving as criterion reference instruments. This enabled systematic checks and comparisons on the timing, sequence and duration of activities recorded from the three data sources. Participants (n = 148) were asked to complete a single-day self-report paper Time-Use Diary designed for use in the Harmonised European Time Use Study (HETUS), while simultaneously wearing a camera that continuously recorded images of their activities, and an accelerometer tracking physical movement. In a reconstruction interview shortly after the data collection period, participants viewed the camera images to help researchers interpret the image sequences. Of the initial 148 recruits (multi-seed snowball sample, 59% women, aged 18–91, 43% > 40) 131 returned usable Diary and camera records (of whom 124 also provided a usable whole-day accelerometer record. We compare time allocation estimates from the Diary and camera records, and also match the Diary and camera records to the simultaneously recorded accelerometer vector magnitudes. The data were examined at three analytic levels: aggregate, individual diarist and timeslot. The most important finding is that the estimates of mean daily time devoted to 8 of the 10 main activities differ by < 10% in the camera and Diary records. The single case of major divergence (eating) can be explained by a systematic difference between the procedures followed by the self-reporting diarist and the observer coding the camera records. There are more substantial differences at the respondent level, paired t-tests showing significant differences in time spent in the 4/10 categories. 45% of all variation in the accelerometer vector magnitudes in the timeslots is explained by camera and Diary records. Detailed activity classifications perform much better than METs as predictors of actigraphy. The comparison of the Diary with the camera and accelerometer records strongly supports using Diary methodology for studying the full range of daily activity, particularly at aggregate levels. Accelerometer data could be combined with Diary measures to improve estimation of METs equivalents for various types of active and sedentary behaviour.
Teresa Harms - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a validation study of the eurostat harmonised european time use study hetus Diary using wearable technology
BMC Public Health, 2019Co-Authors: Teresa Harms, Jonathan Gershuny, Aiden R Doherty, Emma Thomas, Karen Milton, Charlie FosterAbstract:The central aim was to examine the accuracy of the full range of daily activities recorded in self-report Time-Use diaries against data from two objective passive data collection devices (wearable camera and accelerometer) serving as criterion reference instruments. This enabled systematic checks and comparisons on the timing, sequence and duration of activities recorded from the three data sources. Participants (n = 148) were asked to complete a single-day self-report paper Time-Use Diary designed for use in the Harmonised European Time Use Study (HETUS), while simultaneously wearing a camera that continuously recorded images of their activities, and an accelerometer tracking physical movement. In a reconstruction interview shortly after the data collection period, participants viewed the camera images to help researchers interpret the image sequences. Of the initial 148 recruits (multi-seed snowball sample, 59% women, aged 18–91, 43% > 40) 131 returned usable Diary and camera records (of whom 124 also provided a usable whole-day accelerometer record. We compare time allocation estimates from the Diary and camera records, and also match the Diary and camera records to the simultaneously recorded accelerometer vector magnitudes. The data were examined at three analytic levels: aggregate, individual diarist and timeslot. The most important finding is that the estimates of mean daily time devoted to 8 of the 10 main activities differ by < 10% in the camera and Diary records. The single case of major divergence (eating) can be explained by a systematic difference between the procedures followed by the self-reporting diarist and the observer coding the camera records. There are more substantial differences at the respondent level, paired t-tests showing significant differences in time spent in the 4/10 categories. 45% of all variation in the accelerometer vector magnitudes in the timeslots is explained by camera and Diary records. Detailed activity classifications perform much better than METs as predictors of actigraphy. The comparison of the Diary with the camera and accelerometer records strongly supports using Diary methodology for studying the full range of daily activity, particularly at aggregate levels. Accelerometer data could be combined with Diary measures to improve estimation of METs equivalents for various types of active and sedentary behaviour.
-
using time use data to analyse travel behaviour findings from the uk
Transportation research procedia, 2018Co-Authors: Teresa Harms, Jonathan Gershuny, Doina OlaruAbstract:Abstract Time-Use Diary surveys (TUS) gather detailed information on daily activities and travel undertaken by individuals and households. Many transport researchers have overlooked these data, which is the motivation for and purpose of this paper. A number of considerations need to be taken into account when using TUS data, particularly in relation to analysis, which is rather specialised. We compare TUS and activity-travel diaries from transport and report on travel behaviour using data from the 2014-2015 UK Time Use Survey (UK TUS) and highlight additional data that are available, such as secondary activities and levels of enjoyment associated with travel. The results show that one in four travel episodes included secondary and tertiary activities, the most common being listening to music and radio, socialising with family and others, telephone conversations and reading. Using ICT (smartphone, tablet, computer, etc.) was reported in 11.3% of travel episodes and 26.9% of the time respondents felt rushed while travelling. In terms of enjoyment, longer travel episodes were associated with lower levels of enjoyment, active travel was the most enjoyable and commuting the least. Commuting episodes were the longest, followed by social and personal business, at least 1-2 min longer than travel episodes for escorting children and others, or for shopping.
Jonathan Gershuny - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a validation study of the eurostat harmonised european time use study hetus Diary using wearable technology
BMC Public Health, 2019Co-Authors: Teresa Harms, Jonathan Gershuny, Aiden R Doherty, Emma Thomas, Karen Milton, Charlie FosterAbstract:The central aim was to examine the accuracy of the full range of daily activities recorded in self-report Time-Use diaries against data from two objective passive data collection devices (wearable camera and accelerometer) serving as criterion reference instruments. This enabled systematic checks and comparisons on the timing, sequence and duration of activities recorded from the three data sources. Participants (n = 148) were asked to complete a single-day self-report paper Time-Use Diary designed for use in the Harmonised European Time Use Study (HETUS), while simultaneously wearing a camera that continuously recorded images of their activities, and an accelerometer tracking physical movement. In a reconstruction interview shortly after the data collection period, participants viewed the camera images to help researchers interpret the image sequences. Of the initial 148 recruits (multi-seed snowball sample, 59% women, aged 18–91, 43% > 40) 131 returned usable Diary and camera records (of whom 124 also provided a usable whole-day accelerometer record. We compare time allocation estimates from the Diary and camera records, and also match the Diary and camera records to the simultaneously recorded accelerometer vector magnitudes. The data were examined at three analytic levels: aggregate, individual diarist and timeslot. The most important finding is that the estimates of mean daily time devoted to 8 of the 10 main activities differ by < 10% in the camera and Diary records. The single case of major divergence (eating) can be explained by a systematic difference between the procedures followed by the self-reporting diarist and the observer coding the camera records. There are more substantial differences at the respondent level, paired t-tests showing significant differences in time spent in the 4/10 categories. 45% of all variation in the accelerometer vector magnitudes in the timeslots is explained by camera and Diary records. Detailed activity classifications perform much better than METs as predictors of actigraphy. The comparison of the Diary with the camera and accelerometer records strongly supports using Diary methodology for studying the full range of daily activity, particularly at aggregate levels. Accelerometer data could be combined with Diary measures to improve estimation of METs equivalents for various types of active and sedentary behaviour.
-
using time use data to analyse travel behaviour findings from the uk
Transportation research procedia, 2018Co-Authors: Teresa Harms, Jonathan Gershuny, Doina OlaruAbstract:Abstract Time-Use Diary surveys (TUS) gather detailed information on daily activities and travel undertaken by individuals and households. Many transport researchers have overlooked these data, which is the motivation for and purpose of this paper. A number of considerations need to be taken into account when using TUS data, particularly in relation to analysis, which is rather specialised. We compare TUS and activity-travel diaries from transport and report on travel behaviour using data from the 2014-2015 UK Time Use Survey (UK TUS) and highlight additional data that are available, such as secondary activities and levels of enjoyment associated with travel. The results show that one in four travel episodes included secondary and tertiary activities, the most common being listening to music and radio, socialising with family and others, telephone conversations and reading. Using ICT (smartphone, tablet, computer, etc.) was reported in 11.3% of travel episodes and 26.9% of the time respondents felt rushed while travelling. In terms of enjoyment, longer travel episodes were associated with lower levels of enjoyment, active travel was the most enjoyable and commuting the least. Commuting episodes were the longest, followed by social and personal business, at least 1-2 min longer than travel episodes for escorting children and others, or for shopping.
Aiden R Doherty - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a validation study of the eurostat harmonised european time use study hetus Diary using wearable technology
BMC Public Health, 2019Co-Authors: Teresa Harms, Jonathan Gershuny, Aiden R Doherty, Emma Thomas, Karen Milton, Charlie FosterAbstract:The central aim was to examine the accuracy of the full range of daily activities recorded in self-report Time-Use diaries against data from two objective passive data collection devices (wearable camera and accelerometer) serving as criterion reference instruments. This enabled systematic checks and comparisons on the timing, sequence and duration of activities recorded from the three data sources. Participants (n = 148) were asked to complete a single-day self-report paper Time-Use Diary designed for use in the Harmonised European Time Use Study (HETUS), while simultaneously wearing a camera that continuously recorded images of their activities, and an accelerometer tracking physical movement. In a reconstruction interview shortly after the data collection period, participants viewed the camera images to help researchers interpret the image sequences. Of the initial 148 recruits (multi-seed snowball sample, 59% women, aged 18–91, 43% > 40) 131 returned usable Diary and camera records (of whom 124 also provided a usable whole-day accelerometer record. We compare time allocation estimates from the Diary and camera records, and also match the Diary and camera records to the simultaneously recorded accelerometer vector magnitudes. The data were examined at three analytic levels: aggregate, individual diarist and timeslot. The most important finding is that the estimates of mean daily time devoted to 8 of the 10 main activities differ by < 10% in the camera and Diary records. The single case of major divergence (eating) can be explained by a systematic difference between the procedures followed by the self-reporting diarist and the observer coding the camera records. There are more substantial differences at the respondent level, paired t-tests showing significant differences in time spent in the 4/10 categories. 45% of all variation in the accelerometer vector magnitudes in the timeslots is explained by camera and Diary records. Detailed activity classifications perform much better than METs as predictors of actigraphy. The comparison of the Diary with the camera and accelerometer records strongly supports using Diary methodology for studying the full range of daily activity, particularly at aggregate levels. Accelerometer data could be combined with Diary measures to improve estimation of METs equivalents for various types of active and sedentary behaviour.
Karen Milton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a validation study of the eurostat harmonised european time use study hetus Diary using wearable technology
BMC Public Health, 2019Co-Authors: Teresa Harms, Jonathan Gershuny, Aiden R Doherty, Emma Thomas, Karen Milton, Charlie FosterAbstract:The central aim was to examine the accuracy of the full range of daily activities recorded in self-report Time-Use diaries against data from two objective passive data collection devices (wearable camera and accelerometer) serving as criterion reference instruments. This enabled systematic checks and comparisons on the timing, sequence and duration of activities recorded from the three data sources. Participants (n = 148) were asked to complete a single-day self-report paper Time-Use Diary designed for use in the Harmonised European Time Use Study (HETUS), while simultaneously wearing a camera that continuously recorded images of their activities, and an accelerometer tracking physical movement. In a reconstruction interview shortly after the data collection period, participants viewed the camera images to help researchers interpret the image sequences. Of the initial 148 recruits (multi-seed snowball sample, 59% women, aged 18–91, 43% > 40) 131 returned usable Diary and camera records (of whom 124 also provided a usable whole-day accelerometer record. We compare time allocation estimates from the Diary and camera records, and also match the Diary and camera records to the simultaneously recorded accelerometer vector magnitudes. The data were examined at three analytic levels: aggregate, individual diarist and timeslot. The most important finding is that the estimates of mean daily time devoted to 8 of the 10 main activities differ by < 10% in the camera and Diary records. The single case of major divergence (eating) can be explained by a systematic difference between the procedures followed by the self-reporting diarist and the observer coding the camera records. There are more substantial differences at the respondent level, paired t-tests showing significant differences in time spent in the 4/10 categories. 45% of all variation in the accelerometer vector magnitudes in the timeslots is explained by camera and Diary records. Detailed activity classifications perform much better than METs as predictors of actigraphy. The comparison of the Diary with the camera and accelerometer records strongly supports using Diary methodology for studying the full range of daily activity, particularly at aggregate levels. Accelerometer data could be combined with Diary measures to improve estimation of METs equivalents for various types of active and sedentary behaviour.