Dataset Information

Prompts to increase physical activity at points-of-choice between stairs and escalators: what about escalator climbers?

ABSTRACT: Since 1980, many studies have evaluated whether stair-use prompts increased physical activity by quantifying changes in stair use. To more completely evaluate changes in physical activity, this study addressed the often-overlooked assessment of climbing up escalators by evaluating the degree to which stair-use sign prompts increased active ascent-defined as stair use or escalator climbing. Over 5 months, at an airport stairs/escalator point of choice, we video-recorded passersby (N = 13,544) who ascended either stairs or escalators, on 10 days with signs and 10 days without signs. Ascenders using the stairs, standing on the escalator, and climbing the escalator were compared on days with versus without signs using multivariable logistic regression. The percentage of ascenders on days with versus without signs were as follows: stair use, 6.9 versus 3.6 percent; escalator standing, 75.2 versus 76.0 percent; and escalator climbing, 18.5 versus 20.4 percent. Signs more than doubled the odds of stair use (vs. escalator use; OR = 2.25; 95% CI = 1.90-2.68; p < .001). Signs decreased the odds of escalator climbing (vs. escalator standing or stair use); OR = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.82-0.99; p = .028). Signs increased the odds of active ascent versus escalator standing by 15 percent (OR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.05-1.25; p = .002). Although stair-use prompts increased stair use more than twofold (125%), they increased active ascent by only 15 percent, partly because escalator climbing-a behavior not targeted by the intervention-decreased. Although our results corroborated the established consensus that point-of-choice prompts increase stair use, future studies should test interventions designed to increase active ascent.

SUBMITTER: Bellettiere J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6629843 | biostudies-other | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prompts to increase physical activity at points-of-choice between stairs and escalators: what about escalator climbers?

Bellettiere John J Nguyen Ben B Liles Sandy S Berardi Vincent V Adams Marc A MA Dempsey Paddy P Benporat Yael Y Kerr Jacqueline J LaCroix Andrea Z AZ Hovell Melbourne M

Translational behavioral medicine 20190701 4

Since 1980, many studies have evaluated whether stair-use prompts increased physical activity by quantifying changes in stair use. To more completely evaluate changes in physical activity, this study addressed the often-overlooked assessment of climbing up escalators by evaluating the degree to which stair-use sign prompts increased active ascent-defined as stair use or escalator climbing. Over 5 months, at an airport stairs/escalator point of choice, we video-recorded passersby (N = 13,544) who ...[more]

PMID: 30099542

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThis study aimed to examine the validity of wrist acceleration cut points for classifying moderate (MPA), vigorous (VPA), and moderate-to-vigorous (MVPA) physical activity.MethodsFifty-seven children (5-12 yr) completed 15 semistructured activities. Three sets of wrist cut points (>192 mg, >250 mg, and >314 mg), previously developed using Euclidian norm minus one (ENMO192+), GENEActiv software (GENEA250+), and band-pass filter followed by Euclidian norm (BFEN314+), were evaluated against indirect calorimetry. Analyses included classification accuracy, equivalence testing, and Bland-Altman procedures.ResultsAll cut points classified MPA, VPA, and MVPA with substantial accuracy (ENMO192+: κ = 0.72 [95% confidence interval = 0.72-0.73], MVPA: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) = 0.85 [0.85-0.86]; GENEA250+: κ = 0.75 [0.74-0.76], MVPA: ROC-AUC = 0.85 [0.85-0.86]; BFEN314+: κ = 0.73 [0.72-0.74], MVPA: ROC-AUC = 0.86 [0.86-0.87]). BFEN314+ misclassified 19.7% non-MVPA epochs as MPA, whereas ENMO192+ and GENEA250+ misclassified 32.6% and 26.5% of MPA epochs as non-MVPA, respectively. Group estimates of MPA time were equivalent (P < 0.01) to indirect calorimetry for the BFEN314+ MPA cut point (mean bias = -1.5%, limits of agreement [LoA] = -57.5% to 60.6%), whereas estimates of MVPA time were equivalent (P < 0.01) to indirect calorimetry for the ENMO192+ (mean bias = -1.1%, LoA = -53.7% to 55.9%) and GENEA250+ (mean bias = 2.2%, LoA = -56.5% to 52.2%) cut points. Individual variability (LoA) was large for MPA (min: BFEN314+, -60.6% to 57.5%; max: GENEA250+, -42.0% to 104.1%), VPA (min: BFEN314+, -238.9% to 54.6%; max: ENMO192+, -244.5% to 127.4%), and MVPA (min: ENMO192+, -53.7% to 55.0%; max: BFEN314+, -83.9% to 25.3%).ConclusionWrist acceleration cut points misclassified a considerable proportion of non-MVPA and MVPA. Group-level estimates of MVPA were acceptable; however, error for individual-level prediction was larger.

Project description:Physical activity is not only efficient for primary prevention of several cancer types, but it also plays an important role in cancer survivors. Physical activity after a cancer diagnosis has been associated with reduced overall and cancer-specific mortality. It has significant positive effects on physical fitness and several cancer-related symptoms including fatigue, sleep disturbance, depression and anxiety. The evidence is considerable and consistent for breast, colorectal and endometrial cancers. However, patients are generally insufficiently active, and participation rates in physical activity opportunities offered by specialized organizations are low. This pilot study will evaluate the feasibility, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an intervention seeking to increase active lifestyle and physical activity participation of cancer patients. To encourage this behavioural change, motivational interviewing will be used, a patient-centred approach aimed at increasing the patients’ motivation for a behavioural change through open-ended discussions. Seventy patients with breast, colorectal or endometrial cancer will be recruited within a time period of 12 months. Patients will be randomly assigned to an intervention or a control group. The intervention group will receive standard care alongside 12 motivational interviewing sessions within 12 weeks. The control group will receive standard care only. Physical activity behaviour (3D-accelerometer) and physical fitness (cardiovascular and strength fitness) will be measured in the week preceding and following the intervention. Additionally, a subgroup from both study arms will be assessed 12 weeks after the completion of the intervention. The investigators hypothesize that sedentary time will decrease and time spent in moderate and vigorous physical activity, physical fitness and quality of life of cancer survivors will increase to a greater extent in the intervention group than in the control group. Furthermore, health-related quality of life and resource use (intervention and healthcare costs, out of pocket costs) will be measured to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the intervention.

Dataset Information

Prompts to increase physical activity at points-of-choice between stairs and escalators: what about escalator climbers?

Publications

Prompts to increase physical activity at points-of-choice between stairs and escalators: what about escalator climbers?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets