Deborah R Young1, Margo A Sidell2, Corinna Koebnick2, Brit I Saksvig3, Yasmina Mohan2, Deborah A Cohen4, Tong Tong Wu5. 1. Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, California. Electronic address: deborah.r.young@kp.org. 2. Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, California. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland. 4. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California. 5. Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Time spent in sedentary behaviors is a newer risk factor for poor cardiometabolic health. This study examined longitudinal correlates of sedentary time among a cohort of females from about age 17 to age 23 years. METHODS: The cohort included females originally participating in the Trial of Activity for Adolescent Girls Maryland site who had assessments in 2009 and 2015 (n=431). Percentage daily time in sedentary behaviors was determined from accelerometers. Sociodemographics, psychosocial factors, and health behaviors were assessed by questionnaire. Lasso variable selection identified potential variables included in linear mixed effects models. As a secondary analysis, a k-means algorithm for longitudinal data identified homogeneous clusters of individual sedentary time trajectories. RESULTS: Percentage daily sedentary time did not change over time (67% to 68%). Not of black race (p=0.04), higher father's education (p<0.001), more weekday computer hours (p<0.001), more weekend TV hours (p=0.01), more physical activity barriers (p=0.003), fewer days per week driving (p=0.01), and more vehicles in the household (p=0.02) were associated with greater sedentary time. Cluster analysis resulted in two patterns: more (70%) versus less (60%) time being sedentary. The more sedentary individuals were more likely to be college graduates (p<0.001), have a higher income (p=0.03), and work fewer hours (p=0.009). They were also less likely to be married or in a common-law relationship (p=0.05) or in a parenting role (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Time spent in sedentary behaviors remained stable. Factors associated with sedentary time were significant across the socioecologic framework and included several factors indicating higher SES.
INTRODUCTION: Time spent in sedentary behaviors is a newer risk factor for poor cardiometabolic health. This study examined longitudinal correlates of sedentary time among a cohort of females from about age 17 to age 23 years. METHODS: The cohort included females originally participating in the Trial of Activity for Adolescent Girls Maryland site who had assessments in 2009 and 2015 (n=431). Percentage daily time in sedentary behaviors was determined from accelerometers. Sociodemographics, psychosocial factors, and health behaviors were assessed by questionnaire. Lasso variable selection identified potential variables included in linear mixed effects models. As a secondary analysis, a k-means algorithm for longitudinal data identified homogeneous clusters of individual sedentary time trajectories. RESULTS: Percentage daily sedentary time did not change over time (67% to 68%). Not of black race (p=0.04), higher father's education (p<0.001), more weekday computer hours (p<0.001), more weekend TV hours (p=0.01), more physical activity barriers (p=0.003), fewer days per week driving (p=0.01), and more vehicles in the household (p=0.02) were associated with greater sedentary time. Cluster analysis resulted in two patterns: more (70%) versus less (60%) time being sedentary. The more sedentary individuals were more likely to be college graduates (p<0.001), have a higher income (p=0.03), and work fewer hours (p=0.009). They were also less likely to be married or in a common-law relationship (p=0.05) or in a parenting role (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Time spent in sedentary behaviors remained stable. Factors associated with sedentary time were significant across the socioecologic framework and included several factors indicating higher SES.
Authors: Leah M Lipsky; Tonja R Nansel; Denise L Haynie; Danping Liu; Kaigang Li; Charlotte A Pratt; Ronald J Iannotti; Katherine W Dempster; Bruce Simons-Morton Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Valerie Carson; Stephen Hunter; Nicholas Kuzik; Casey E Gray; Veronica J Poitras; Jean-Philippe Chaput; Travis J Saunders; Peter T Katzmarzyk; Anthony D Okely; Sarah Connor Gorber; Michelle E Kho; Margaret Sampson; Helena Lee; Mark S Tremblay Journal: Appl Physiol Nutr Metab Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 2.665
Authors: Justine Kozo; James F Sallis; Terry L Conway; Jacqueline Kerr; Kelli Cain; Brian E Saelens; Lawrence D Frank; Neville Owen Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2012-04-30 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Nyssa T Hadgraft; Brigid M Lynch; Bronwyn K Clark; Genevieve N Healy; Neville Owen; David W Dunstan Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Léonie Uijtdewilligen; Jos W R Twisk; Amika S Singh; Mai J M Chinapaw; Willem van Mechelen; Wendy J Brown Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2014-01-24 Impact factor: 6.457