Case–control study of lifetime total physical activity and endometrial cancer risk

A population-based case–control study of physical activity and endometrial cancer risk was conducted in Alberta between 2002 and 2006. Incident, histologically confirmed cases of endometrial cancer (n = 542) were frequency age-matched to controls (n = 1,032). The Lifetime Total Physical Activity Questionnaire was used to measure occupational, household, and recreational activity levels. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted. Total lifetime physical activity reduced endometrial cancer risk (odds ratio [OR] for >129 vs. <82 MET-h/week/year = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.63, 1.18). By type of activity, the risks were significantly decreased for greater recreational activity (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.47, 0.87), but not for household activity (OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.75, 1.58) and/or occupational activity (OR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.67, 1.20) when comparing the highest to lowest quartiles. For activity performed at different biologically defined life periods, some indication of reduced risks with activity done between menarche and full-term pregnancy and after menarche was observed. When examining the activity by intensity of activity (i.e., light <3, moderate 3–6, and vigorous >6 METs), light activity slightly decreased endometrial cancer risk (OR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.48, 0.97) but no association with moderate or vigorous intensity activity was found. Endometrial cancer risk was increased with sedentary occupational activity by 28% (95 CI%: 0.89, 1.83) for >11.3 h/week/year versus ≤2.4 h/week/year or by 11% for every 5 h/week/year spent in sedentary behavior. This study provides evidence for a decreased risk between lifetime physical activity and endometrial cancer risk and a possible increased risk associated with sedentary behavior

Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Subjective measures of sedentary behaviour (SB) (i.e. questionnaires and diaries/logs) are widely implemented, and can be useful for capturing type and context of SBs. However, little is known about comparative validity and reliability. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to: 1) identify subjective methods to assess overall, domain- and behaviour-specific SB, and 2) examine the validity and reliability of these methods. METHODS: The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus were searched up to March 2020. Inclusion criteria were: 1) assessment of SB, 2) evaluation of subjective measurement tools, 3) being performed in healthy adults, 4) manuscript written in English, and 5) paper was peer-reviewed. Data of validity and/or reliability measurements was extracted from included studies and a meta-analysis using random effects was performed to assess the pooled correlation coefficients of the validity. RESULTS: The systematic search resulted in 2423 hits. After excluding duplicates and screening on title and abstract, 82 studies were included with 75 self-reported measurement tools. There was wide variability in the measurement properties and quality of the studies. The criterion validity varied between poor-to-excellent (correlation coefficient [R] range - 0.01- 0.90) with logs/diaries (R = 0.63 [95%CI 0.48-0.78]) showing higher criterion validity compared to questionnaires (R = 0.35 [95%CI 0.32-0.39]). Furthermore, correlation coefficients of single- and multiple-item questionnaires were comparable (1-item R = 0.34; 2-to-9-items R = 0.35; ≥10-items R = 0.37). The reliability of SB measures was moderate-to-good, with the quality of these studies being mostly fair-to-good. CONCLUSION: Logs and diaries are recommended to validly and reliably assess self-reported SB. However, due to time and resources constraints, 1-item questionnaires may be preferred to subjectively assess SB in large-scale observations when showing similar validity and reliability compared to longer questionnaires. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018105994