Dataset Information

TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self-report tools: content analysis and systematic review.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Dall PM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5775464 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self-report tools: content analysis and systematic review.

Dall P M PM Coulter E H EH Fitzsimons C F CF Skelton D A DA Chastin Sfm S

BMJ open 20170408 4

<h4>Objective</h4>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.<h4>Design</h4>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 invento ...[more]

PMID: 28391233

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Sedentary behaviour (SB) is a risk factor for chronic disease and premature mortality. While many individual studies have examined the reliability and validity of various self-report measures for assessing SB, it is not clear, in general, how self-reported SB (e.g., questionnaires, logs, ecological momentary assessments (EMAs)) compares to device measures (e.g., accelerometers, inclinometers). OBJECTIVE:The primary objective of this systematic review was to compare self-report versus device measures of SB in adults. METHODS:Six bibliographic databases were searched to identify all studies which included a comparable self-report and device measure of SB in adults. Risk of bias within and across studies was assessed. Results were synthesized using meta-analyses. RESULTS:The review included 185 unique studies. A total of 123 studies comprising 173 comparisons and data from 55,199 participants were used to examine general criterion validity. The average mean difference was -105.19 minutes/day (95% CI: -127.21, -83.17); self-report underestimated sedentary time by ~1.74 hours/day compared to device measures. Self-reported time spent sedentary at work was ~40 minutes higher than when assessed by devices. Single item measures performed more poorly than multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries. On average, when compared to inclinometers, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries were not significantly different, but had substantial amount of variability (up to 6 hours/day within individual studies) with approximately half over-reporting and half under-reporting. A total of 54 studies provided an assessment of reliability of a self-report measure, on average the reliability was good (ICC = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS:Evidence from this review suggests that single-item self-report measures generally underestimate sedentary time when compared to device measures. For accuracy, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries with a shorter recall period should be encouraged above single item questions and longer recall periods if sedentary time is a primary outcome of study. Users should also be aware of the high degree of variability between and within tools. Studies should exert caution when comparing associations between different self-report and device measures with health outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42019118755.

Project description:Understanding the sources of the large individual differences in sedentary behavior is of great importance as this behavior is associated with pre-mature mortality and non-communicable diseases. Here, we report on the contribution of genetic and environmental factors to the variation in objectively assessed (accelerometer) sedentary behavior and self-reported sitting and their shared genetic basis. In addition, the overlap of the genetic risk factors influencing sedentary time and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) was estimated. A sample of 800 individuals (twins and their siblings) was equipped with an Actigraph accelerometer for 7 days and reported on their sitting time and time spent on MVPA on those days using the IPAQ-SF. Genetic factors explained 56% (CI: 44%, 65%) of the individual differences in objective sedentary behavior (Actigraph) and 26% (CI: 0%, 51%) of the individual differences in self-reported sedentary behavior (IPAQ-SF). A modest correlation (0.33) was found between these measures, which was for 45% accounted for by genetic influences. The genetic correlation was 0.49 reflecting a partly overlapping set of genes that influenced both measurements. A modest correlation (-0.27) between Actigraph-derived sedentary time and MVPA was found, which was 13% accounted for by genetic effects. The genetic correlation was -0.31, indicating that there are overlapping genetic variants that increase sedentary time and decrease MVPA or vice versa. To conclude, more than half of the individual differences in objective sedentary time could be attributed to genetic differences, while for self-reported sitting this was much lower. In addition, using objective measurements, this study confirms that sedentary time is not simply the inverse of MVPA. Future studies are needed to understand the pathways translating genomic variation into variation in these behaviors and how this knowledge might feed into the development of health promotion interventions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The interpretation of previous studies on the association of physical activity and sedentary behaviour with psychological health is limited by the use of mostly self-reported physical activity and sedentary behaviour, and a focus on Western populations. We aimed to explore the association of self-reported and devise-based measures of physical activity and sedentary behaviour domains on psychological distress in an urban multi-ethnic Asian population. METHODS:From a population-based cross-sectional study of adults aged 18-79 years, data were used from an overall sample (n?=?2653) with complete self-reported total physical activity/sedentary behaviour and domain-specific physical activity data, and a subsample (n?=?703) with self-reported domain-specific sedentary behaviour and accelerometry data. Physical activity and sedentary behaviour data were collected using the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ), a domain-specific sedentary behaviour questionnaire and accelerometers. The Kessler Screening Scale (K6) and General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) were used to assess psychological distress. Logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals, adjusted for socio-demographic and lifestyle characteristics. RESULTS:The sample comprised 45.0% men (median age?=?45.0 years). The prevalence of psychological distress based on the K6 and GHQ-12 was 8.4% and 21.7%, respectively. In the adjusted model, higher levels of self-reported moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) were associated with significantly higher odds for K6 (OR?=?1.47 [1.03-2.10]; p-trend?=?0.03) but not GHQ-12 (OR?=?0.97 [0.77-1.23]; p-trend?=?0.79), when comparing the highest with the lowest tertile. Accelerometry-assessed MVPA was not significantly associated with K6 (p-trend?=?0.50) nor GHQ-12 (p-trend?=?0.74). The highest tertile of leisure-time physical activity, but not work- or transport-domain activity, was associated with less psychological distress using K6 (OR?=?0.65 [0.43-0.97]; p-trend?=?0.02) and GHQ-12 (OR?=?0.72 [0.55-0.93]; p-trend?=?0.01). Self-reported sedentary behaviour was not associated with K6 (p-trend?=?0.90) and GHQ-12 (p-trend?=?0.33). The highest tertile of accelerometry-assessed sedentary behaviour was associated with significantly higher odds for K6 (OR?=?1.93 [1.00-3.75]; p-trend?=?0.04), but not GHQ-12 (OR?=?1.34 [0.86-2.08]; p-trend?=?0.18). CONCLUSIONS:Higher levels of leisure-time physical activity and lower levels of accelerometer-based sedentary behaviour were associated with lower psychological distress. This study underscores the importance of assessing accelerometer-based and domain-specific activity in relation to mental health, instead of solely focusing on total volume of activity.

Project description: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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Sedentary behavior (SED) is a potential risk factor for poor pregnancy outcomes. We evaluated the validity of several common and one new method to assess SED across three trimesters of pregnancy. METHODS:This cohort study of pregnant women measured objective and self-reported SED each trimester via thigh-worn activPAL3 micro (criterion), waist-worn Actigraph GT3X, and self-report from the Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire (PPAQ) and the de novo Sedentary Behavior Two Domain Questionnaire (SB2D). SED (hours per day) and percent time in SED (SED%) from activPAL were compared to GT3X, SB2D, and PPAQ using Pearson's r, ICC, Bland-Altman analysis, and comparison of criterion SED and SED% across tertiles of alternative methods. RESULTS:Fifty-eight women (mean age 31.5 ± 4.8 years; pre-pregnancy BMI 25.1 ± 5.6 kg/m2; 76% white) provided three trimesters of valid activPAL data. Compared to activPAL, GT3X had agreement ranging from r = 0.54-0.66 and ICC = 0.52-0.65. Bland-Altman plots revealed small mean differences and unpatterned errors, but wide limits of agreement (greater than ±2 h and ± 15%). The SB2D and PPAQ had r < 0.5 and ICC < 0.3 vs. activPAL SED, with lower agreement during the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, and performed poorly in Bland-Altman analyses. SED% from the modified SB2D performed best of the self-reported instruments with modest mean differences, r ranging from 0.55 to 0.60, and ICCs from 0.31-0.33; though, limits of agreement were greater than ±35%. Significant trends in activPAL SED were observed across increasing tertiles of SB2D SED in the 1st and 3rd trimesters (both p ≤ 0.001), but not the 2nd trimester (p = 0.425); and for PPAQ SED in the 1st and 2nd trimesters (both p < 0.05), but not the 3rd trimester (p = 0.158). AcitvPAL SED and SED% increased significantly across tertiles of GT3X SED and SED% as well as SB2D SED% (all p-for-trend ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Compared to activPAL, waist-worn GT3X produced moderate agreement, though similar mean estimates of SED across pregnancy. Self-report questionnaires had large absolute error and wide limits of agreement for SED hr./day; SB2D measurement of SED% was the best self-report method. These data suggest activPAL be used to measure SED when possible, followed by GT3X, and - when necessary - SB2D assessing SED% in pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT03084302 on 3/20/2017.

Project description:PurposeThe increasing recognition of the complex impacts of a cancer diagnosis and its treatment has led to efforts to develop instruments to reflect survivors' needs accurately. However, evidence regarding the content and quality of instruments used to evaluate the unmet needs of lymphoma survivors is lacking. This review aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties and comprehensiveness of available self-report instruments to assess unmet needs and quality of life with adult lymphoma survivors.MethodsA systematic search of five databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, PsycInfo and Scopus) was conducted to identify instruments measuring unmet needs or quality of life outcomes. Original articles reporting the instrument's validation or development via citation screening were retrieved and screened against eligibility criteria. An appraisal of the instrument's measurement properties was conducted, guided by the COSMIN methodology and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A content comparison using the Supportive Care in Cancer Framework was performed.ResultsTwelve instruments met the inclusion criteria; only one was explicitly developed for lymphoma (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma). Four instruments focused on the construct of need, and eight focused on quality of life. The psychometric data in the published literature is not comprehensive; there is heterogeneity in their development, content and quality. No included instrument was examined for all COSMIN measurement properties, and methodological quality was variable; all instruments measured at least four domains of need. The emotional domain was reviewed by all instruments (n = 12), and the spiritual and informational domains received the least focus (n = 4 each).ConclusionThis review provides a platform for instrument comparison, with suggestions for important factors to consider in systematically selecting unmet needs and quality of life self-report measures for adult lymphoma survivors. Considering the various discrepancies and limitations of the available instruments, using more than one instrument is recommended. In selecting measurement instruments, researchers should consider research objectives, study design, psychometric properties and the pros and cons of using more than one measure. Evaluating the participant burden and feasibility of completing the selected instrument is important for lymphoma survivors, a group burdened by cancer-related fatigue and cognitive impairment.

Project description:BackgroundCompassion is closely linked to psychological well-being, and several assessment tools have been developed and studied to assess the level of compassion in different populations and for more precise measurement. There is currently a scarcity of comprehensive knowledge about compassion-related assessment tools, and our research provides an overview of these tools.AimsTo identify scales used to measure compassion from different flows, and to assess their measurement properties and quality.MethodsFocusing on compassion assessment tools, the authors conducted a thorough search of 10 Chinese and English databases from their establishment until August 14, 2022. Data extracted included the author, year, country, objectives, target population, as well as the primary evaluation content. Using the COSMIN checklist, the methodological quality and measurement properties of the included studies were appraised. This scoping review was registered with the Open Science Framework and followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist.ResultsThere were 15,965 papers searched, and 36 compassion-related measurement tools were identified in this study. None of the 36 studies provided possessed all nine psychometric properties, as outlined by the COSMIN criteria. On the basis of a systematic evaluation of quality, measurement qualities were ranked. The results for internal consistency and content validity were relatively favorable, whereas the results for structural validity were variable and the results for the remaining attributes were either uncertain or negative. A Venn diagram was used to illustrate the overlapping groups of compassion measurement tools based on the three-way flow of compassion. An overview of the reference instrument and theoretical basis for the included studies was provided, and half of them did not contain any theoretical or scale-based evidence.ConclusionIn this study, 36 compassion-related measuring instruments were identified, and the methodological quality and measurement properties of the included studies were acceptable. The included measurements were consistent with flows of compassion. A further focus of further research should be on developing theories in the compassion domain and developing instruments for measuring compassion that are multidimensional, multi-populations, and culturally relevant.

Project description:BackgroundImplementation research is the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of clinical research findings into routine clinical practice. Several interventions have been shown to be effective in changing health care professionals' behaviour, but heterogeneity within interventions, targeted behaviours, and study settings make generalisation difficult. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the 'active ingredients' in professional behaviour change strategies. Theories of human behaviour that feature an individual's "intention" to do something as the most immediate predictor of their behaviour have proved to be useful in non-clinical populations. As clinical practice is a form of human behaviour such theories may offer a basis for developing a scientific rationale for the choice of intervention to use in the implementation of new practice. The aim of this review was to explore the relationship between intention and behaviour in clinicians and how this compares to the intention-behaviour relationship in studies of non-clinicians.MethodsWe searched: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Science/Social science citation index, Current contents (social & behavioural med/clinical med), ISI conference proceedings, and Index to Theses. The reference lists of all included papers were checked manually. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they had: examined a clinical behaviour within a clinical context, included measures of both intention and behaviour, measured behaviour after intention, and explored this relationship quantitatively. All titles and abstracts retrieved by electronic searching were screened independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved by discussion.DiscussionTen studies were found that examined the relationship between intention and clinical behaviours in 1623 health professionals. The proportion of variance in behaviour explained by intention was of a similar magnitude to that found in the literature relating to non-health professionals. This was more consistently the case for studies in which intention-behaviour correspondence was good and behaviour was self-reported. Though firm conclusions are limited by a smaller literature, our findings are consistent with that of the non-health professional literature. This review, viewed in the context of the larger populations of studies, provides encouragement for the contention that there is a predictable relationship between the intentions of a health professional and their subsequent behaviour. However, there remain significant methodological challenges.

Dataset Information

TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self-report tools: content analysis and systematic review.

Publications

TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self-report tools: content analysis and systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets