Systematic comparative validation of self-report measures of sedentary time against an objective measure of postural sitting (activPAL)

Background: Sedentary behaviour is a public health concern that requires surveillance and epidemiological research. For such large scale studies, self-report tools are a pragmatic measurement solution. A large number of self-report tools are currently in use, but few have been validated against an objective measure of sedentary time and there is no comparative information between tools to guide choice or to enable comparison between studies. The aim of this study was to provide a systematic comparison, generalisable to all tools, of the validity of self-report measures of sedentary time against a gold standard sedentary time objective monitor. Methods: Cross sectional data from three cohorts (N = 700) were used in this validation study. Eighteen self-report measures of sedentary time, based on the TAxonomy of Self-report SB Tools (TASST) framework, were compared against an objective measure of postural sitting (activPAL) to provide information, generalizable to all existing tools, on agreement and precision using Bland-Altman statistics, on criterion validity using Pearson correlation, and on data loss. Results: All self-report measures showed poor accuracy compared with the objective measure of sedentary time, with very wide limits of agreement and poor precision (random error > 2.5 h). Most tools under-reported total sedentary time and demonstrated low correlations with objective data. The type of assessment used by the tool, whether direct, proxy, or a composite measure, influenced the measurement characteristics. Proxy measures (TV time) and single item direct measures using a visual analogue scale to assess the proportion of the day spent sitting, showed the best combination of precision and data loss. The recall period (e.g. previous week) had little influence on measurement characteristics. Conclusion: Self-report measures of sedentary time result in large bias, poor precision and low correlation with an objective measure of sedentary time. Choice of tool depends on the research context, design and question. Choice can be guided by this systematic comparative validation and, in the case of population surveillance, it recommends to use a visual analog scale and a 7 day recall period. Comparison between studies and improving population estimates of average sedentary time, is possible with the comparative correction factors provided

Translating research into practice: outcomes from the Healthy Living after Cancer partnership project

Background: Healthy Living after Cancer (HLaC) was a national dissemination and implementation study of an evidence-based lifestyle intervention for cancer survivors. The program was imbedded into existing telephone cancer information and support services delivered by Australian state-based Cancer Councils (CC). We report here the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the program. Methods: In this phase IV study (single-group, pre-post design) participants - survivors of any type of cancer, following treatment with curative intent - received up to 12 nurse/allied health professional-led telephone health coaching calls over 6 months. Intervention delivery was grounded in motivational interviewing, with emphasis on evidence-based behaviour change strategies. Using the RE-AIM evaluation framework, primary outcomes were reach, indicators of program adoption, implementation, costs and maintenance. Secondary (effectiveness) outcomes were participant-reported anthropometric, behavioural and psychosocial variables including: weight; physical activity; dietary intake; quality-of-life; treatment side-effects; distress; and fear of cancer recurrence and participant satisfaction. Changes were evaluated using linear mixed models, including terms for timepoint (0/6 months), strata (Cancer Council), and timepoint x strata. Results: Four of 5 CCs approached participated in the study. In total, 1183 cancer survivors were referred (mostly via calls to the Cancer Council telephone information service). Of these, 90.4% were eligible and 88.7% (n = 791) of those eligible consented to participate. Retention rate was 63.4%. Participants were mostly female (88%), aged 57 years and were overweight (BMI = 28.8 ± 6.5 kg/m2). Improvements in all participant-reported outcomes (standardised effect sizes of 0.1 to 0.6) were observed (p < 0.001). The program delivery costs were on average AU$427 (US$296) per referred cancer survivor. Conclusions: This telephone-delivered lifestyle intervention, which was feasibly implemented by Cancer Councils, led to meaningful and statistically significant improvements in cancer survivors’ health and quality-of-life at a relatively low cost.Elizabeth G. Eakin, Marina M. Reeves, Ana D. Goode, Elisabeth A.H. Winkler, Janette L. Vardy, Frances Boyle, Marion R. Haas, Janet E. Hiller, Gita D. Mishra, Michael Jefford, Bogda Koczwara, Christobel M. Saunders, Kathy Chapman, Liz Hing, Anna G. Boltong, Katherine Lane, Polly Baldwin, Lesley Millar, Sandy McKiernan, Wendy Demark-Wahnefried, Kerry S. Courneya, Jennifer Job, Natasha Reid, Erin Robson, Nicole Moretto, Louisa Gordon, and Sandra C. Haye

Prolonged uninterrupted sitting elevates postprandial hyperglycaemia proportional to degree of insulin resistance

Prolonged uninterrupted sitting is related adversely to cardiometabolic risk markers and postprandial hyperglycaemia, relative to sitting interrupted by regular brief activity breaks. However, whether the magnitude of hyperglycaemic responses to prolonged sitting is dependent upon the underlying degree of insulin resistance remains unclear. Data were pooled from three randomised cross-over laboratory-based trials (n=62) that examined the postprandial blood glucose- and insulin-lowering effects of prolonged sitting versus sitting interrupted by regular brief activity breaks in overweight/obese adults who had normal or impaired glucose metabolism (two trials), or type 2 diabetes not treated by insulin (one trial). Corrected for study effects, the magnitude of differences in postprandial glucose and insulin responses between the two conditions was significantly exacerbated with poorer baseline levels of fasting glucose, insulin and/or surrogate markers of β-cell function and insulin resistance. This suggests that those with higher underlying levels of insulin resistance may derive greater metabolic benefits from regularly interrupting prolonged sitting than their counterparts. If these findings can be replicated, they will have implications for future targeting and optimisation of physical activity/sedentary behaviour interventions in the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes

Descriptive Epidemiology of Interruptions to Free-Living Sitting Time in Middle-Age and Older Adults

National guidelines recommend physically active interruptions to sitting time; however, the characteristics of these interruptions are broadly stated and ill-defined. A robust methodology for population surveillance for such interruptions is needed. Purpose To describe the frequency and characteristics (i.e., duration, stepping time, and estimated intensity) of all interruptions and physically active interruptions to adults’ free-living sitting time (i.e., transitions from sitting to upright posture) across segments of the population. Methods Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle study participants (321 men; 406 women; mean ± standard deviation, 58.0 ± 10.3 yr) wore the activPAL3™ for ≥1 valid day. The characteristics of interruptions from laboratory studies demonstrating health benefits were selected to define active interruptions (≥5 min upright and/or ≥2 min stepping) and ambulatory interruptions (≥2 min stepping). The frequency and characteristics of all, active, and ambulatory interruptions were described and compared by age, sex, diabetes status, and body mass index. Results Adults averaged 55.0 ± 21.8 interruptions per day, but only 20.3 ± 6.7 were active and 14.0 ± 5.4 were ambulatory. Median (25th, 75th percentile) duration was 2.6 min (0.9, 7.8 min), stepping time was 0.8 min (0.3, 2.0 min), and estimated energy expenditure was 4.3 metabolic equivalents (MET)·min−1 (1.4, 12.5 MET·min−1). Those who were older, had obesity, or had diabetes had significantly (P < 0.05) fewer interruptions of all types and less stepping time during active interruptions than their counterparts (Cohen’s d < 0.2). Conclusions Free-living interruptions were often less active than interruptions performed in effective acute laboratory studies and their content varied widely between population groups. Monitoring all interruptions, as well as those that are more active, is advisable to provide a comprehensive understanding of free-living sedentary behavior

Associations of context-specific sitting time with markers of cardiometabolic risk in Australian adults

BACKGROUND: High volumes of sitting time are associated with an elevated risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and with adverse cardiometabolic risk profiles. However, previous studies have predominately evaluated only total sitting or television (TV) viewing time, limiting inferences about the specific cardiometabolic health impacts of sitting accumulated in different contexts. We examined associations of sitting time in four contexts with cardiometabolic risk biomarkers in Australian adults. METHODS: Participants (n = 3429; mean ± SD age 58 ± 10 years) were adults without clinically diagnosed diabetes or cardiovascular disease from the 2011-2012 Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle (AusDiab) study. Multiple linear regressions examined associations of self-reported context-specific sitting time (occupational, transportation, TV-viewing and leisure-time computer use) with a clustered cardiometabolic risk score (CMR) and with individual cardiometabolic risk biomarkers (waist circumference, BMI, resting blood pressure, triglycerides, HDL- and LDL-cholesterol, and fasting and 2-h post-load plasma glucose). RESULTS: Higher CMR was significantly associated with greater TV-viewing and computer sitting time (b [95%CI] = 0.07 [0.04, 0.09] and 0.06 [0.03, 0.09]), and tended to be associated with higher occupational and transport sitting time (0.01 [- 0.01, 0.03] and 0.03 [- 0.00, 0.06]), after adjustment for potential confounders. Furthermore, keeping total sitting time constant, accruing sitting via TV-viewing and computer use was associated with significantly higher CMR (0.05 [0.02, 0.08] and 0.04 [0.01, 0.06]), accruing sitting in an occupational context was associated with significantly lower CMR (- 0.03 [- 0.05, - 0.01]), while no significant association was seen for transport sitting (0.00 [- 0.03, 0.04]). Results varied somewhat between the respective biomarkers; however, higher sitting time in each domain tended to be associated detrimentally with individual biomarkers except for fasting glucose (non-significant associations) and systolic blood pressure (a beneficial association was observed). Overall, associations were stronger for TV-viewing and computer use, and weaker for occupational sitting. CONCLUSIONS: Higher context-specific sitting times tended to be detrimentally associated, albeit modestly, with CMR and several cardiometabolic risk biomarkers. There was some evidence suggesting that the context in which people sit is relevant above and beyond total sitting time. Methodological issues notwithstanding, these findings may assist in identifying priorities for sitting-reduction initiatives, in order to achieve optimal cardiometabolic health benefits

Intervening to reduce workplace sitting: Mediating role of social-cognitive constructs during a cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The Stand Up Victoria multi-component intervention successfully reduced workplace sitting time in both the short (three months) and long (12 months) term. To further understand how this intervention worked, we aimed to assess the impact of the intervention on four social-cognitive constructs, and examined whether these constructs mediated intervention effects on workplace sitting time at 3 and 12 months post-baseline. METHODS: Two hundred and thirty one office-based workers (14 worksites, single government employer) were randomised to intervention or control conditions by worksite. The intervention comprised organisational, environmental, and individual level elements. Participant characteristics and social-cognitive constructs (perceived behavioural control, barrier self-efficacy, perceived organisational norms and knowledge) were measured through a self-administered online survey at baseline, 3 months and 12 months. Workplace sitting time (min/8 h day) was measured with the activPAL3 device. Single multi-level mediation models were performed for each construct at both time points. RESULTS: There were significant intervention effects at 3 months on perceived behavioural control, barrier self-efficacy and perceived organisational norms. Effects on perceived organisational norms were not significant at 12 months. Perceived behavioural control significantly mediated intervention effects at 3 months, accounting for a small portion of the total effect (indirect effect: -8.6 min/8 h day, 95% CI: -18.5, -3.6 min; 7.5% of total effect). At 12 months, barrier self-efficacy significantly mediated the intervention effects on workplace sitting time (indirect effect: -10.3 min/8 h day, 95% CI: -27.3, -2.2; 13.9% of total effect). No significant effects were observed for knowledge at either time point. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies that aim to increase workers' perceived control and self-efficacy over their sitting time may be helpful components of sedentary behaviour interventions in the workplace. However, social-cognitive factors only partially explain variation in workplace sitting reduction. Understanding the importance of other levels of influence (particularly interpersonal and environmental) for initiating and maintaining workplace sedentary behaviour change will be informative for intervention development and refinement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials register ( ACTRN12611000742976 ) on 15 July 2011

Translating research into practice: outcomes from the Healthy Living after Cancer partnership project.

BACKGROUND:Healthy Living after Cancer (HLaC) was a national dissemination and implementation study of an evidence-based lifestyle intervention for cancer survivors. The program was imbedded into existing telephone cancer information and support services delivered by Australian state-based Cancer Councils (CC). We report here the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the program. METHODS:In this phase IV study (single-group, pre-post design) participants - survivors of any type of cancer, following treatment with curative intent - received up to 12 nurse/allied health professional-led telephone health coaching calls over 6 months. Intervention delivery was grounded in motivational interviewing, with emphasis on evidence-based behaviour change strategies. Using the RE-AIM evaluation framework, primary outcomes were reach, indicators of program adoption, implementation, costs and maintenance. Secondary (effectiveness) outcomes were participant-reported anthropometric, behavioural and psychosocial variables including: weight; physical activity; dietary intake; quality-of-life; treatment side-effects; distress; and fear of cancer recurrence and participant satisfaction. Changes were evaluated using linear mixed models, including terms for timepoint (0/6 months), strata (Cancer Council), and timepoint x strata. RESULTS:Four of 5 CCs approached participated in the study. In total, 1183 cancer survivors were referred (mostly via calls to the Cancer Council telephone information service). Of these, 90.4% were eligible and 88.7% (n = 791) of those eligible consented to participate. Retention rate was 63.4%. Participants were mostly female (88%), aged 57 years and were overweight (BMI = 28.8 ± 6.5 kg/m2). Improvements in all participant-reported outcomes (standardised effect sizes of 0.1 to 0.6) were observed (p < 0.001). The program delivery costs were on average AU$427 (US$296) per referred cancer survivor. CONCLUSIONS:This telephone-delivered lifestyle intervention, which was feasibly implemented by Cancer Councils, led to meaningful and statistically significant improvements in cancer survivors' health and quality-of-life at a relatively low cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) - ACTRN12615000882527 (registered on 24/08/2015)