| Literature DB >> 25927293 |
Benjamin Gardner1, Steve Iliffe2, Kenneth R Fox3, Barbara J Jefferis4,5, Mark Hamer6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Of all age groups, older adults spend the most time watching TV, which is one of the most common sedentary behaviours. Such sedentary activity in older adulthood is thought to risk deterioration of physical and mental functioning, health and wellbeing. Identifying the characteristics of older adults whose TV viewing increases over time may help to target sedentary behaviour reduction interventions to those in most urgent need. Yet, studies of the factors associated with TV viewing have predominantly been cross-sectional. This study used a prospective design to describe changes in TV viewing over a two-year follow-up period, and to model socio-demographic, behavioural and health factors associated with observed changes in viewing time.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25927293 PMCID: PMC4149242 DOI: 10.1186/s12966-014-0102-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act ISSN: 1479-5868 Impact factor: 6.457
Baseline characteristics of the sample, organised by baseline mean TV viewing time
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (mean [SD] years) |
| 63.6 ± 8.9 | 64.4 ± 8.9 | 65.5 ± 9.0 | 65.3 ± 8.9 | F = 10.12*** |
| Men |
| 53.4 | 47.7 | 42.4 | 41.4 | χ2 = 37.58*** |
| Lowest social status‡ |
| 17.8 | 26.2 | 39.8 | 54.0 | χ2 = 510.22*** |
| Depressive symptoms |
| 9.5 | 8.1 | 12.1 | 16.4 | χ2 = 68.55*** |
| Disability |
| 14.6 | 15.5 | 21.5 | 29.6 | χ2 = 134.62*** |
| Chronic illness |
| 45.0 | 48.3 | 54.2 | 57.1 | χ2 = 44.76*** |
| Obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) |
| 18.3 | 26.4 | 34.0 | 39.2 | χ2 = 169.58*** |
| Physically inactive† |
| 9.0 | 13.3 | 19.9 | 25.0 | χ2 = 216.26*** |
| Current smokers |
| 6.0 | 10.2 | 11.7 | 18.0 | χ2 = 88.88*** |
Data presented are percentages unless otherwise stated.
†Defined as no moderate or vigorous activity on a weekly basis.
‡Defined as routine/manual occupations.
***p < .001.
Changes in mean TV viewing time between baseline and 2-year follow-up ( = 6,090)
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
| 88 (1.4%) | 110 (1.8%) | 258 (4.2%) | 160 (2.6%) |
|
|
| 567 (9.3%) | 258 (4.2%) | 658 (10.8%) | 617 (10.1%) |
| |
|
| 688 (11.3%) | 169 (2.8%) | 361 (5.9%) | 445 (7.3%) |
| |
|
| 1129 (18.5%) | 80 (1.3%) | 131 (2.2%) | 371 (6.1%) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Percentages are of total sample.
Socio-demographic, behavioural and health factors associated with changes in mean TV viewing time (in hours) between baseline and 2-year follow-up ( = 6,090)
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Managerial/ professional | 2226 | Reference | Reference |
| Intermediate | 1580 | 0.41 (0.16, 0.66) | 0.36 (0.11, 0.60) |
| Manual/routine | 2236 | 1.31 (1.08, 1.54) | 1.12 (0.89, 1.36) |
| Other | 48 | - | - |
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | |
|
| |||
| No | 5378 | Reference | Reference |
| Yes | 712 | 0.81 (0.51, 1.11) | 0.43 (0.12, 0.74) |
|
| <0.001 | 0.007 | |
|
| |||
| No | 4817 | Reference | Reference |
| Yes | 1273 | 0.69 (0.45, 0.94) | 0.25 (−0.01, 0.52) |
|
| <0.001 | 0.06 | |
|
| |||
| No | 2924 | Reference | Reference |
| Yes | 3166 | 0.27 (0.08, 0.46) | −0.04 (−0.24, 0.17) |
|
| 0.007 | 0.73 | |
|
| |||
| 15 - 25 | 1631 | Reference | Reference |
| ≥25 < 30 | 2559 | 0.37 (0.13, 0.61) | 0.43 (0.19, 0.66) |
| ≥30 | 1900 | 0.91 (0.65, 1.16) | 0.82 (0.56, 1.08) |
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | |
|
| |||
| Inactive | 1085 | Reference | Reference |
| Moderate | 3017 | −0.95 (−1.22, −0.68). | −0.65 (−0.92, −0.37) |
| Vigorous | 1988 | −1.07 (−1.36, −.077) | −0.57 (−0.78, −0.26) |
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | |
|
| |||
| Never | 2503 | Reference | Reference |
| Ex-smoker | 2849 | 0.09 (−0.12, 0.30) | 0.02 (−0.19, 0.23) |
| Current | 738 | 0.93 (0.61, 1.25) | 0.71 (0.39, 1.03) |
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 |
Model 1 adjusted for age, sex and baseline TV viewing. Model 2 adjusted for age, sex, baseline TV viewing and mutually for all variables presented. Β (95% Confidence Interval) coefficients reflect increases in hours/day of TV viewing between baseline and follow-up. * Coefficients are not reported for the ‘other’ socioeconomic status category due to small sample size and heterogeneity of employment statuses captured by this category. All available data were however entered into the regression model, in that coefficients for other socioeconomic status categories were calculated using dummy variables that contrasted the focal category with all three other categories.