Stephanie A Prince1, Robert D Reid2, Jordan Bernick3, Anna E Clarke2, Jennifer L Reed2. 1. Division of Cardiac Prevention and Rehabilitation, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Canada. Electronic address: sprinceware@ottawaheart.ca. 2. Division of Cardiac Prevention and Rehabilitation, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Canada. 3. Cardiovascular Research Methods Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare sedentary time (ST) measured by self-report using a single question from the short-form International Physical Activity Questionnaire (SF-IPAQ), 18-items from the Sedentary Behaviour Questionnaire (SBQ) and objectively using an accelerometer among a large sample of nurses. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHODS: Participants wore an ActiGraph GT3X accelerometer (≥4 days, ≥10h/day) and self-reported usual day sitting using the IPAQ and sitting in different modes using the SBQ. Measures were compared using correlations, a Friedman test with Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests for pairwise comparisons, linear regression and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: A total of 313 nurses (95% female; mean±SD: age=43±12 years) from 14 hospitals participated. Participants self-reported sitting for a median of 240min/day using the SF-IPAQ and 328min/day using the SBQ. Median ST measured by the ActiGraph was 434min/day. All measures were weakly correlated with each other (ρ=0.31-40, ps<0.001). Limits of agreement were wide between all measures. Significant proportional bias between the ActiGraph and the SF-IPAQ and SBQ existed, suggesting that with greater amounts of ST, there is greater disagreement between the self-report and objective measures. CONCLUSIONS: In a sample of nurses, self-reported ST using the SF-IPAQ and SBQ was significantly lower than that measured by accelerometer. A single-item tool performed more poorly than a multi-item questionnaire. Future studies should consider including both objective and self-report measures of ST, and where possible use a tool that quantifies ST across multiple domains, define a 'usual day' and are meaningful for those with daily schedule variations such as among shift-worker populations.
OBJECTIVES: To compare sedentary time (ST) measured by self-report using a single question from the short-form International Physical Activity Questionnaire (SF-IPAQ), 18-items from the Sedentary Behaviour Questionnaire (SBQ) and objectively using an accelerometer among a large sample of nurses. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHODS:Participants wore an ActiGraph GT3X accelerometer (≥4 days, ≥10h/day) and self-reported usual day sitting using the IPAQ and sitting in different modes using the SBQ. Measures were compared using correlations, a Friedman test with Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests for pairwise comparisons, linear regression and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: A total of 313 nurses (95% female; mean±SD: age=43±12 years) from 14 hospitals participated. Participants self-reported sitting for a median of 240min/day using the SF-IPAQ and 328min/day using the SBQ. Median ST measured by the ActiGraph was 434min/day. All measures were weakly correlated with each other (ρ=0.31-40, ps<0.001). Limits of agreement were wide between all measures. Significant proportional bias between the ActiGraph and the SF-IPAQ and SBQ existed, suggesting that with greater amounts of ST, there is greater disagreement between the self-report and objective measures. CONCLUSIONS: In a sample of nurses, self-reported ST using the SF-IPAQ and SBQ was significantly lower than that measured by accelerometer. A single-item tool performed more poorly than a multi-item questionnaire. Future studies should consider including both objective and self-report measures of ST, and where possible use a tool that quantifies ST across multiple domains, define a 'usual day' and are meaningful for those with daily schedule variations such as among shift-worker populations.
Authors: B M A van Bakel; S H Kroesen; A Günal; A Scheepmaker; W R M Aengevaeren; F F Willems; R Wondergem; M F Pisters; J Dam; A M Janssen; M de Bruin; M T E Hopman; D H J Thijssen; T M H Eijsvogels Journal: BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med Date: 2022-05-24
Authors: Anne H Y Chu; Sheryl H X Ng; David Koh; Falk Müller-Riemenschneider Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Esmée A Bakker; Yvonne A W Hartman; Maria T E Hopman; Nicola D Hopkins; Lee E F Graves; David W Dunstan; Genevieve N Healy; Thijs M H Eijsvogels; Dick H J Thijssen Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 6.457