Toshoya Mcewan1, Linna Tam-Seto2, Shilpa Dogra1. 1. Faculty of Health Sciences (Kinesiology), University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, Canada. 2. School of Rehabilitation Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
Purpose: To better understand the perceptions of sedentary behavior, its pros and cons, and the barriers associated with reducing sedentary time as it pertains to older adults. Design and Methods: Four focus group sessions were conducted with older adults (n = 26). Each focus group lasted approximately 45min, was led by an experienced qualitative researcher, and utilized probing questions on the definition of sedentary behavior, pros and cons of sedentary behavior, and programming needs for sedentary time reduction. Sessions were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers independently extracted data from the transcripts and identified major themes and subthemes. Data on sociodemographics and current activity levels were collected via questionnaires. Results: Participants were 74±8.5 years old and were primarily women (77%). They self-reported sitting for 5.6±1.7h per day and engaging in physical activity for 172±115min/day. Four themes were identified. The first theme indicated that older adults have varied definitions of the term sedentary behavior and that they have a negative perception of this term. The second theme indicated that participants perceived social, cognitive, and physical benefits to the sedentary activities in which they engaged, and that these activities were meaningful. The third theme indicated that physical health was the only perceived disadvantage of engaging in sedentary activities. Finally, the fourth theme indicated that there were several perceived barriers to sedentary time reduction, both person and environment related. Implications: These findings have implications for use of terminology in policy and public health strategies targeting sedentary time reduction in older adults.
Purpose: To better understand the perceptions of sedentary behavior, its pros and cons, and the barriers associated with reducing sedentary time as it pertains to older adults. Design and Methods: Four focus group sessions were conducted with older adults (n = 26). Each focus group lasted approximately 45min, was led by an experienced qualitative researcher, and utilized probing questions on the definition of sedentary behavior, pros and cons of sedentary behavior, and programming needs for sedentary time reduction. Sessions were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers independently extracted data from the transcripts and identified major themes and subthemes. Data on sociodemographics and current activity levels were collected via questionnaires. Results:Participants were 74±8.5 years old and were primarily women (77%). They self-reported sitting for 5.6±1.7h per day and engaging in physical activity for 172±115min/day. Four themes were identified. The first theme indicated that older adults have varied definitions of the term sedentary behavior and that they have a negative perception of this term. The second theme indicated that participants perceived social, cognitive, and physical benefits to the sedentary activities in which they engaged, and that these activities were meaningful. The third theme indicated that physical health was the only perceived disadvantage of engaging in sedentary activities. Finally, the fourth theme indicated that there were several perceived barriers to sedentary time reduction, both person and environment related. Implications: These findings have implications for use of terminology in policy and public health strategies targeting sedentary time reduction in older adults.
Authors: Declan J Ryan; Jorgen A Wullems; Georgina K Stebbings; Christopher I Morse; Claire E Stewart; Gladys L Onambele-Pearson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: G H Rawlings; R K Williams; D J Clarke; C English; C Fitzsimons; I Holloway; R Lawton; G Mead; A Patel; A Forster Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Sofie Compernolle; Ann DeSmet; Louise Poppe; Geert Crombez; Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij; Greet Cardon; Hidde P van der Ploeg; Delfien Van Dyck Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Shilpa Dogra; Maureen C Ashe; Stuart J H Biddle; Wendy J Brown; Matthew P Buman; Sebastien Chastin; Paul A Gardiner; Shigeru Inoue; Barbara J Jefferis; Koichiro Oka; Neville Owen; Luís B Sardinha; Dawn A Skelton; Takemi Sugiyama; Jennifer L Copeland Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Maria Giné-Garriga; Oriol Sansano-Nadal; Mark A Tully; Paolo Caserotti; Laura Coll-Planas; Dietrich Rothenbacher; Dhayana Dallmeier; Michael Denkinger; Jason J Wilson; Carme Martin-Borràs; Mathias Skjødt; Kelly Ferri; Ana Claudia Farche; Emma McIntosh; Nicole E Blackburn; Antoni Salvà; Marta Roqué-I-Figuls Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Victoria J Palmer; Cindy M Gray; Claire F Fitzsimons; Nanette Mutrie; Sally Wyke; Ian J Deary; Geoff Der; Sebastien F M Chastin; Dawn A Skelton Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2019-07-16