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.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.
dc.identifier.pmid32131845 (pubmed)
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:
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.rightsLicence for published version: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
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.journalInternational Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activityen
dc.contributor.institutionDivision of Cardiac Prevention and Rehabilitation, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
rioxxterms.funderCanadian Institutes of Health Research, Public Health Agency of Canadaen
rioxxterms.identifier.projectNew Investigatoren
rioxxterms.identifier.projectHealth System Impact Fellowshipen
dc.description.versionPublished version

Files in this item

A comparison of self-reported ...

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