Dataset Information

Pattern measures of sedentary behaviour in adults: A literature review.

ABSTRACT: Objective:With sensors, we are increasingly able to assess sitting behaviour during the day. However, there is no consensus among researchers on the best outcome measures for representing the accumulation of sedentary time during the day. Methods:We analysed the pattern measures of sedentary behaviour. Articles reporting patterns measures in adults, in which behaviour data was collected with a sensor were included. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the pattern measures of sedentary behaviour and provide recommendations for choosing objective measures of sedentary behaviour. Results:Most studies report the number of sitting bouts during the day. Others focus on the number of breaks and/or periods of physical activity. Simple measures of sedentary behaviour were most popular. More complex pattern measures, such as the Gini index or the half-life bout duration, that capture the distribution of lengths of sitting periods in a single number, were reported sparsely. The sedentary patterns that were reported in the various studies were difficult to compare, due to the differences among measurement devices, data analysis protocols and a lack of basic outcome parameters such as total wear-time and total sedentary time. Conclusions:Objective sedentary measures can be grouped into simple and complex measures of sedentary time accumulation during the day. These measures serve different goals. The answer to the question as to which measures are most suitable to report, is strongly dependent on the research question. We have shown that the reported measures were dependent on (a) the sensing method, (b) the classification method, (c) the experimental and data cleaning protocol and (d) the applied definitions of bouts and breaks. We recommend that studies should always report total wear-time, total sedentary time, number of bouts and at least one measure describing the diversity of bout lengths in the sedentary behaviour such as the half-life bout duration. Additionally, we recommend reporting the measurement conditions and data processing steps.

SUBMITTER: Boerema ST

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7013117 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pattern measures of sedentary behaviour in adults: A literature review.

Boerema Simone T ST van Velsen Lex L Vollenbroek Miriam Mr MM Hermens Hermie J HJ

Digital health 20200101

<h4>Objective</h4>With sensors, we are increasingly able to assess sitting behaviour during the day. However, there is no consensus among researchers on the best outcome measures for representing the accumulation of sedentary time during the day.<h4>Methods</h4>We analysed the pattern measures of sedentary behaviour. Articles reporting patterns measures in adults, in which behaviour data was collected with a sensor were included. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the pattern measures of ...[more]

PMID: 32095261

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe evidence showing the ill health effects of prolonged sedentary behaviour (SB) is growing. Most studies of SB in older adults have relied on self-report measures of SB. However, SB is difficult for older adults to recall and objective measures that combine accelerometry with inclinometry are now available for more accurately assessing SB. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the validity and reliability of these accelerometers for the assessment of SB in older adults.MethodsEMBASE, PubMed and EBSCOhost databases were searched for articles published up to December 13, 2017. Articles were eligible if they: a) described reliability, calibration or validation studies of SB measurement in healthy, community-dwelling individuals, b) were published in English, Portuguese or Spanish, and c) were published or in press as journal articles in peer-reviewed journals.ResultsThe review identified 15 studies in 17 papers. Of the included studies, 11 assessed the ActiGraph accelerometer. Of these, three examined reliability only, seven (in eight papers) examined validity only and one (in two papers) examined both. The strongest evidence from the studies reviewed is from studies that assessed the validity of the ActiGraph. These studies indicate that analysis of the data using 60-s epochs and a vertical magnitude cut-point <?200 cpm or using 30- or 60-s epochs with a machine learning algorithm provides the most valid estimates of SB. Non-wear algorithms of 90+ consecutive zeros is also suggested for the ActiGraph.ConclusionsFew studies have examined the reliability and validity of accelerometers for measuring SB in older adults. Studies to date suggest that the criteria researchers use for classifying an epoch as sedentary instead of as non-wear time (e.g., the non-wear algorithm used) may need to be different for older adults than for younger adults. The required number of hours and days of wear for valid estimates of SB in older adults was not clear from studies to date. More older-adult-specific validation studies of accelerometers are needed, to inform future guidelines on the appropriate criteria to use for analysis of data from different accelerometer brands.Trial registrationPROSPERO ID# CRD42017080754 registered December 12, 2017.

Project description:ObjectivesTo systematically review and synthesise findings from process evaluations of interventions in trials which measured sedentary behaviour as an outcome in adults to explore: (1) how intervention content, implementation, mechanisms of impact and context influence outcomes and (2) how these interventions are experienced from different perspectives (participants, carers, staff).DesignSystematic review and narrative synthesis underpinned by the Medical Research Council process evaluation framework.Data sourcesDatabases searches were conducted in March 2019 then updated in May 2020 and October 2021 in: CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, AMED; EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.Eligibility criteriaWe included: Process evaluations of trials including interventions where sedentary behaviour was measured as an outcome in adults aged 16 or over from clinical or non-clinical populations. We excluded studies if interventions were delivered in educational or workplace settings, or if they were laboratory studies focused on immediate effects of breaking sitting.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted and coded data into a framework and assessed the quality of studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We synthesised findings using a narrative approach.Results17 process evaluations were included. Five interventions focused on reducing sedentary behaviour or sitting time, 12 aimed to increase physical activity or promote healthier lifestyles. Process evaluations indicated changes in sedentary behaviour outcomes were shaped by numerous factors including: barriers (eg, staffing difficulties and scheduling problems) and facilitators (eg, allowing for flexibility) to intervention delivery; contextual factors (eg, usual lifestyle and religious events) and individual factors (eg, pain, tiredness, illness, age and individual preferences).DiscussionIntervention requires careful consideration of different factors that could influence changes in sedentary behaviour outcomes to ensure that interventions can be tailored to suit different individuals and groups.Prospero registration numberCRD42018087403.

Project description:IntroductionSedentary behaviour is defined as any waking behaviour characterised by low energy expenditure ≤1.5 metabolic equivalents while in a sitting, lying or reclining posture. The expanding evidence base suggests that sedentary behaviour may have a detrimental effect on health, well-being and is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. We aim to review process evaluations of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which included a measure of sedentary behaviour in adults in order to develop an understanding of intervention content, mechanisms of impact, implementation and delivery approaches and contexts, in which interventions were reported to be effective or effective. A secondary aim is to summarise participants, family and staff experiences of such interventions.Methods and analysisTen electronic databases and reference lists from previous similar reviews will be searched. Eligible studies will be process evaluations of RCTs that measure sedentary behaviour as a primary or secondary outcome in adults. As this review will contribute to a programme to develop a community-based intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour in stroke survivors, interventions delivered in schools, colleges, universities or workplaces will be excluded. Two reviewers will perform study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Disagreements between reviewers will be resolved by a third reviewer. Process evaluation data to be extracted include the aims and methods used in the process evaluation; implementation data; mechanisms of impact; contextual factors; participant, family and staff experiences of the interventions. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidance.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as it is a protocol for a systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Prospero registration numberCRD42018087403.

Project description:BackgroundSedentary behaviour is considered to contribute to sarcopenia when combined with physical inactivity. Whether sedentary behaviour is independently associated with sarcopenia remains controversial. The aim of this study is to explore the association between sedentary behaviour and sarcopenia in older adults in community and long-term care facility settings.MethodsEight electronic databases including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Wanfang were searched from inception until August 2023. The review included cross-sectional and longitudinal studies concerning the association between sedentary behaviour and sarcopenia among participants over 60 years old. Evidence was pooled by both random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. Subgroup analyses explored variation according to adjustment of physical activity, settings, and measurements of sedentary behaviour and sarcopenia. Quality assessment for individual studies was performed with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist.ResultsSeventeen articles (16 cross-sectional studies and 1 longitudinal study) of 25,788 participants from community or long-term care facility settings were included. The overall quality of the included studies was rated high. Meta-analysis of 14 cross-sectional studies showed that sedentary behaviour was independently positively associated with sarcopenia: pooled odd ratio 1.36 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.58). The independent positive association remained in subgroup analyses by adjustment of physical activity, settings, and measurements of sedentary behaviour and sarcopenia. The narrative analysis corroborated the findings of the meta-analysis and provided additional evidence suggesting that interruptions in sedentary periods were linked to a decreased likelihood of developing sarcopenia.ConclusionsThe findings support the hypothesis that sedentary behaviour is independently positively associated with sarcopenia in older adults, providing vital indications for the development of strategies to prevent sarcopenia.Systematic review registrationThe systematic review protocol has been registered with the PROSPERO database (CRD42022311399).

Dataset Information

Pattern measures of sedentary behaviour in adults: A literature review.

Publications

Pattern measures of sedentary behaviour in adults: A literature review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets