Dataset Information

Development of a consensus taxonomy of sedentary behaviors (SIT): report of Delphi Round 1.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Over the last decade, sedentary behaviors have emerged as a distinctive behavioral paradigm with deleterious effects on health independent of physical activity. The next phase of research is to establish dose response between sedentary behaviors and health outcomes and improve understanding of context and determinants of these behaviors. Establishing a common taxonomy of these behaviors is a necessary step in this process. AIM: The Sedentary behavior International Taxonomy project was developed to establish a classification of sedentary behaviors by use of a formal consensus process. METHODS: The study follows a Delphi process in three Rounds. A preparatory stage informed the development of terms of reference documents. In Round 1, experts were asked to make statements about the taxonomy; 1) its purpose and use ; 2) the domains, categories or facets that should be consider and include; 3) the structure/architecture to arrange and link these domains and facets. In Round 2 experts will be presented with a draft taxonomy emerging from Round 1 and invited to comment and propose alterations. The taxonomy will then be finalised at the outset of this stage. RESULTS: Results of Round 1 are reported here. There is a general consensus that a taxonomy will help advances in research by facilitating systematic and standardised: 1) investigation and analysis; 2) reporting and communication; 3) data pooling, comparison and meta-analysis; 4) development of measurement tools; 4) data descriptions, leading to higher quality in data querying and facilitate discoveries. There is also a consensus that such a taxonomy should be flexible to accommodate diverse purposes of use, and future advances in the field and yet provide a cross-disciplinary common language. A consensual taxonomy structure emerged with nine primary facets (Purpose, Environment, Posture, Social, Measurement, Associated behavior, Status, Time, Type) and the draft structure presented here for Round 2.

SUBMITTER: Chastin SF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3847079 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development of a consensus taxonomy of sedentary behaviors (SIT): report of Delphi Round 1.

Chastin Sebastien Francois Martin SF Schwarz Ulf U Skelton Dawn A DA

PloS one 20131202 12

<h4>Background</h4>Over the last decade, sedentary behaviors have emerged as a distinctive behavioral paradigm with deleterious effects on health independent of physical activity. The next phase of research is to establish dose response between sedentary behaviors and health outcomes and improve understanding of context and determinants of these behaviors. Establishing a common taxonomy of these behaviors is a necessary step in this process.<h4>Aim</h4>The Sedentary behavior International Taxono ...[more]

PMID: 24312653

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo develop a minimum dataset to be routinely collected across a heterogenous population within a subacute rehabilitation service to guide best care and outcomes for patients, and value for the health service.DesignThree-round e-Delphi exercise, followed by consensus meetings.SettingMulticentre study in Brisbane, Australia.ParticipantsRehabilitation decision-makers, researchers and clinicians were invited to participate in the e-Delphi exercise. A multidisciplinary project steering committee (rehabilitation decision makers, researchers, clinicians and consumers) participated in consensus meetings.MethodsIn round 1 of the e-Delphi, participants responded to an open-ended question, generating data and outcomes that should be routinely collected in rehabilitation. In rounds 2 and 3, participants rated the importance of collecting each item on a nine-point scale. Consensus was defined a priori, as items rated as 'essential' by at least 70%, and of 'limited importance' by less than 15%, of respondents. Consensus meetings were held to further refine and define the dataset for implementation.ResultsIn total, 38 participants completed round 1 of the e-Delphi. Qualitative content analysis of their responses generated 1072 codes, which were condensed into 39 categories and 209 subcategories. Following two rounds of rating (round 2: n=32 participants; round 3: n=28 participants), consensus was reached for 124 items. Four consensus meetings (n=14 participants) resulted in the final dataset which included 42 items across six domains: (1) patient demographics, (2) premorbid health and psychosocial information, (3) admission information, (4) service delivery and interventions, (5) outcomes and (6) caregiver information and outcomes.ConclusionsWe identified 42 items that reflect the values and experiences of rehabilitation stakeholders. Items unique to this dataset include caregiver information and outcomes, and detailed service delivery and intervention data. Future research will establish the feasibility of collection in practice.

Project description:Background: Physical Activity Referral Schemes (PARS), including exercise referral schemes, are a popular approach to health improvement, but understanding of effectiveness is limited by considerable heterogeneity in reporting and evaluation. We aimed to gain consensus for a PARS taxonomy as a comprehensive method for reporting and recording of such schemes.Methods: We invited 62 experts from PARS policy, research and practice to complete a modified Delphi study. In round one, participants rated the need for a PARS taxonomy, the suitability of three proposed classification levels and commented on proposed elements. In round two, participants rated proposed taxonomy elements on an 11-point Likert scale. Elements scoring a median of ?7, indicating high agreement, were included in the final taxonomy.Results: Of those invited, 47 (75.8%) participated in round one, with high retention in round two (n?=?43; 91.5%). 42 were UK-based, meaning the resultant taxonomy has been scrutinised for fit to the UK context only. The study gained consensus for a three-level taxonomy: Level 1: PARS classification (primary classification, provider, setting, conditions accepted [have or at risk of], activity type and funding). Level 2: scheme characteristics (staff structure, staff qualifications, behaviour change theories, behaviour change techniques, referral source, referrers, referral process, scheme duration, session frequency, session length, session times, session type, exit routes, action in case of non-attendance, baseline assessment, exit assessment, feedback to referrer and exclusion criteria) and Level 3: participant measures (demographics, monitoring and evaluation, and measures of change).Conclusion: Using a modified Delphi method, this study developed UK-based consensus on a PARS classification taxonomy. We encourage PARS practitioners and public health colleagues, especially those working with similar service models internationally, to test, refine and use this taxonomy to inform policy and practice.

Project description:BackgroundDelphi surveys are commonly used to prioritise critical outcomes in core outcome set (COS) development. This trial aims to compare a three-round (Multi-Round) Delphi (MRD) with a Real-Time Delphi (RTD) in the prioritisation of outcomes for inclusion in a COS for neonatal encephalopathy treatments and explore whether 'feedback', 'iteration', and 'initial condition' effects may occur in the two survey methods.MethodsWe recruited 269 participants (parents/caregivers, healthcare providers and researchers/academics) of which 222 were randomised to either the MRD or the RTD. We investigated the outcomes prioritised in each survey and the 'feedback', 'iteration', and 'initial condition' effects to identify differences between the two survey methods.ResultsIn the RTD, n = 92 participants (83%) fully completed the survey. In the MRD, n = 60 participants (54%) completed all three rounds. Of the 92 outcomes presented, 26 (28%) were prioritised differently between the RTD and MRD. Significantly fewer participants amended their scores when shown stakeholder responses in the RTD compared to the MRD ('feedback effect'). The 'iteration effect' analysis found most experts appeared satisfied with their initial ratings in the RTD and did not amend their scores following stakeholder response feedback. Where they did amend their scores, ratings were amended substantially, suggesting greater convergence. Variance in scores reduced with subsequent rounds of the MRD ('iteration effect'). Whilst most participants did not change their initial scores in the RTD, of those that did, later recruits tended to align their final score more closely to the group mean final score than earlier recruits (an 'initial condition' effect).ConclusionThe feedback effect differed between the two Delphi methods but the magnitude of this difference was small and likely due to the large number of observations rather than because of a meaningfully large difference. It did not appear to be advantageous to require participants to engage in three rounds of a survey due to the low change in scores. Larger drop-out through successive rounds in the MRD, together with a lesser convergence of scores and longer time to completion, indicate considerable benefits of the RTD approach.Trial registrationNCT04471103. Registered on 14 July 2020.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Sedentary behaviour (SB) has distinct deleterious health outcomes, yet there is no consensus on best practice for measurement. This study aimed to identify the optimal self-report tool for population surveillance of SB, using a systematic framework. DESIGN:A framework, TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST), consisting of four domains (type of assessment, recall period, temporal unit and assessment period), was developed based on a systematic inventory of existing tools. The inventory was achieved through a systematic review of studies reporting SB and tracing back to the original description. A systematic review of the accuracy and sensitivity to change of these tools was then mapped against TASST domains. DATA SOURCES:Systematic searches were conducted via EBSCO, reference lists and expert opinion. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:The inventory included tools measuring SB in adults that could be self-completed at one sitting, and excluded tools measuring SB in specific populations or contexts. The systematic review included studies reporting on the accuracy against an objective measure of SB and/or sensitivity to change of a tool in the inventory. RESULTS:The systematic review initially identified 32 distinct tools (141 questions), which were used to develop the TASST framework. Twenty-two studies evaluated accuracy and/or sensitivity to change representing only eight taxa. Assessing SB as a sum of behaviours and using a previous day recall were the most promising features of existing tools. Accuracy was poor for all existing tools, with underestimation and overestimation of SB. There was a lack of evidence about sensitivity to change. CONCLUSIONS:Despite the limited evidence, mapping existing SB tools onto the TASST framework has enabled informed recommendations to be made about the most promising features for a surveillance tool, identified aspects on which future research and development of SB surveillance tools should focus. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROPSPERO)/CRD42014009851.

Dataset Information

Development of a consensus taxonomy of sedentary behaviors (SIT): report of Delphi Round 1.

Publications

Development of a consensus taxonomy of sedentary behaviors (SIT): report of Delphi Round 1.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets