C A Macera1, K E Powell. 1. Physical Activity and Health Branch, Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA. cmacera@cdc.gov
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to describe the application of population attributable risk estimates in relation to the dose-related benefits or risks of physical activity. METHODS: Assumptions and limitations of population attributable risk calculations and interpretations are reviewed and evaluated in the context of physical activity dose. Theoretical estimates are developed for several hypothetical situations. RESULTS: National estimates of population attributable risk may be inaccurate because definitions and measurement techniques applied in physical activity research studies and physical activity prevalence surveys do not correspond. In addition, it is not established whether vigorous or moderate physical activity are independent contributors, sequential categories, or interactive variables in the process of disease reduction. This information is necessary to calculate population attributable risk most appropriately. CONCLUSION: Estimates of the disease burden of physical inactivity will be improved by two advances in empirical studies: first, the pairing of prevalence and relative risk estimates for nationally representative population-based samples; and second, refined relative risk estimates for various doses of physical activity.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to describe the application of population attributable risk estimates in relation to the dose-related benefits or risks of physical activity. METHODS: Assumptions and limitations of population attributable risk calculations and interpretations are reviewed and evaluated in the context of physical activity dose. Theoretical estimates are developed for several hypothetical situations. RESULTS: National estimates of population attributable risk may be inaccurate because definitions and measurement techniques applied in physical activity research studies and physical activity prevalence surveys do not correspond. In addition, it is not established whether vigorous or moderate physical activity are independent contributors, sequential categories, or interactive variables in the process of disease reduction. This information is necessary to calculate population attributable risk most appropriately. CONCLUSION: Estimates of the disease burden of physical inactivity will be improved by two advances in empirical studies: first, the pairing of prevalence and relative risk estimates for nationally representative population-based samples; and second, refined relative risk estimates for various doses of physical activity.
Authors: Darren Er Warburton; Sarah Charlesworth; Adam Ivey; Lindsay Nettlefold; Shannon Sd Bredin Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2010-05-11 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: D Prieto-Alhambra; H Petri; J S B Goldenberg; T P Khong; O H Klungel; N J Robinson; F de Vries Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Sarah E Linke; Thomas Rutledge; B Delia Johnson; Marian B Olson; Vera Bittner; Carol E Cornell; Leslee J Shaw; Wafia Eteiba; Susmita Parashar; David S Sheps; Diane A Vido; Suresh Mulukutla; C Noel Bairey Merz Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: T P Khong; F de Vries; J S B Goldenberg; O H Klungel; N J Robinson; Luisa Ibáñez; H Petri Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2012-05-08 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: G Ntani; P F Day; J Baird; K M Godfrey; S M Robinson; C Cooper; H M Inskip Journal: J Dev Orig Health Dis Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 2.401