Measurement of Adults’ Sedentary Time in Population-Based Studies
By G. Healy, Bronwyn K. Clark, E. Winkler, P. Gardiner, W. Brown, C. Matthews. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2011
611 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Sedentary time (too much sitting) is increasingly being recognized as a distinct health risk behavior. This paper reviews the reliability and validity of self-reported and device-based sedentary time measures and provides recommendations for their use in population-based studies. The focus is on instruments that have been used in free-living, population-based research in adults. Data from the 2003–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey are utilized to compare the descriptive epidemiology of sedentary time that arises from the use of different sedentary time measures. A key recommendation from this review is that, wherever possible, population-based monitoring of sedentary time should incorporate both self-reported measures (to capture important domain- and behavior-specific sedentary time information) and device-based measures (to measure both total sedentary time and patterns of sedentary time accumulation).
Subfields: Physiology, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Transportation
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6dc0d697af34ab78da4323413f119b7b12aa3a8c
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Physiology
In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
In Transportation
Citations in the corpus
- Daily Sitting Time and All-Cause Mortality: A Meta-Analysis (2013, methodology): “Five of the six studies included in this meta-analysis assessed total sitting time through single-item self-report measures, and measurement error in reported sitting time could have led to misclassification and attenuation of the risk estimates observed in these studies[31,37].”
- Sedentary behaviour and risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality, and incident type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and dose response meta-analysis (2018, background): “Heterogeneity in question phrasing, the time period considered and whether a question is single or multipart can all influence validity [93].”