Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPrince, Stephanie
dc.contributor.authorCardilli, Luca
dc.contributor.authorReed, Jennifer L.
dc.contributor.authorSaunders, Travis
dc.contributor.authorKite, Chris
dc.contributor.authorDouillette, Kevin
dc.contributor.authorFournier, Karine
dc.contributor.authorBuckley, John P.
dc.date.accessioned2023-02-03T10:47:06Z
dc.date.available2023-02-03T10:47:06Z
dc.date.issued2020-03-04
dc.identifier.citationPrince, S.A., Cardilli, L., Reed, J.L. et al. (2020) A comparison of self-reported and device measured sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 17, 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-020-00938-3en
dc.identifier.issn1479-5868en
dc.identifier.pmid32131845 (pubmed)
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12966-020-00938-3en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2436/625099
dc.description© 2020 The Authors. Published by BMC. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-020-00938-3en
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: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.en
dc.description.sponsorshipDr. Stephanie Prince was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) – Public Health Agency of Canada Health System Impact Fellowship. Dr. Jennifer Reed is funded, in part, by a CIHR New Investigator Salary Award. Dr. Jennifer Reed was awarded a Planning and Dissemination Grant (#150435) from the CIHR to support Open Access publication charges.en
dc.formatapplication/pdfen
dc.languageeng
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherBMCen
dc.relation.urlhttps://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12966-020-00938-3en
dc.rightsLicence for published version: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectself-reporten
dc.subjectdeviceen
dc.subjectsedentary behaviouren
dc.subjectsystematic reviewen
dc.titleA comparison of self-reported and device measured sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysisen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.identifier.eissn1479-5868
dc.identifier.journalInternational Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activityen
dc.date.updated2023-02-01T10:53:24Z
dc.contributor.institutionDivision of Cardiac Prevention and Rehabilitation, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Canada. stephanie.princeware@canada.ca.
pubs.place-of-publicationEngland
dc.date.accepted2020-02-19
rioxxterms.funderCanadian Institutes of Health Research, Public Health Agency of Canadaen
rioxxterms.identifier.project150435en
rioxxterms.identifier.projectNew Investigatoren
rioxxterms.identifier.projectHealth System Impact Fellowshipen
rioxxterms.versionVoRen
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2023-02-03en
dc.source.volume17
dc.source.issue1
dc.source.beginpage31
dc.description.versionPublished version
refterms.dateFCD2023-02-03T10:46:53Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2023-02-03T10:47:07Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
A comparison of self-reported ...
Size:
1.171Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Licence for published version: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Licence for published version: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International