» Articles » PMID: 26001579

Objective Measurement of Sedentary Behavior: Impact of Non-wear Time Rules on Changes in Sedentary Time

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Public Health
Date 2015 May 24
PMID 26001579
Citations 27
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Accelerometry non-wear time rules might affect sedentary time, and the associations with health outcomes such as adiposity. However, the exact effect of different non-wear time rules on sedentary time and reported changes in sedentary time is unknown. This study evaluated the effect of different accelerometry non-wear time rules on sedentary time and changes in sedentary time from age 9-12 years.

Methods: Accelerometry data were collected as part of the Gateshead Millennium Birth Cohort study. Participants were 9.3 (± 0.4) years at baseline (n =  17) and 12.5 (± 0.3) years at follow-up (n = 440). Sedentary time was defined using an accelerometry cut-point of 25 counts per 15 s. Non-wear time was defined using manual data reduction (the reference method) and 10 min, 20 min and 60 min consecutive zeros. Differences between methods were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc analyses.

Results: Mean daily sedentary time at age 9 ranged from 364 min per day to 426 min using the 10 min and 60 min rule, respectively (p < 0.05). At 12 years, mean daily sedentary times ranged from 424 min to 518 min (p < 0.05). Mean changes in daily sedentary time over the three years ranged from 60 min to 93 min using the 10 min and 60 min rule, respectively (p < 0.05). When adjusting for wear time, differences in average sedentary time between methods decreased from 62 min to 27 min (age 9), 95 min to 32 min (age 12) and 33 min to 10 min (changes between 9 to 12 years).

Conclusions: Using different non-wear time rules results in significant differences in daily sedentary time and changes in sedentary time. Correcting for wear time appears to be a reasonable approach to limiting these differences and may improve comparability between future studies. Using the 20 min rule, while correcting for wear time, provided the most accurate estimates of sedentary time and changes in sedentary time, compared to the manual reference in 9-12 year-olds.

Citing Articles

The association between device-measured sitting time and cardiometabolic health risk factors in children.

Contardo Ayala A, Ridgers N, Timperio A, Arundell L, Dunstan D, Hesketh K BMC Public Health. 2024; 24(1):1015.

PMID: 38609909 PMC: 11010425. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-18495-w.


The effects of active workstations on reducing work-specific sedentary time in office workers: a network meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials.

Zhou L, Deng X, Xu M, Wu Y, Shang X, E F Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2023; 20(1):92.

PMID: 37501138 PMC: 10375647. DOI: 10.1186/s12966-023-01467-5.


Understanding the influence of 24-hour movement behaviours on the health and development of preschool children from low-income South African settings: the SUNRISE pilot study.

Draper C, Tomaz S, Cook C, Jugdav S, Ramsammy C, Besharati S S Afr J Sports Med. 2023; 32(1):v32i1a8415.

PMID: 36818976 PMC: 9924532. DOI: 10.17159/2078-516X/2020/v32i1a8415.


An evaluation of data processing when using the ActiGraph GT3X accelerometer in non-ambulant children and adolescents with cerebral palsy.

Jakobsson T, Lauruschkus K, Tornberg A Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2022; 43(2):85-95.

PMID: 36373707 PMC: 10099771. DOI: 10.1111/cpf.12795.


Detecting accelerometer non-wear periods using change in acceleration combined with rate-of-change in temperature.

Vert A, Weber K, Thai V, Turner E, Beyer K, Cornish B BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022; 22(1):147.

PMID: 35596151 PMC: 9123693. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-022-01633-6.


References
1.
Trost S . Objective measurement of physical activity in youth: current issues, future directions. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2001; 29(1):32-6. DOI: 10.1097/00003677-200101000-00007. View

2.
Cole T, Freeman J, Preece M . Body mass index reference curves for the UK, 1990. Arch Dis Child. 1995; 73(1):25-9. PMC: 1511150. DOI: 10.1136/adc.73.1.25. View

3.
Trost S, McIver K, Pate R . Conducting accelerometer-based activity assessments in field-based research. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005; 37(11 Suppl):S531-43. DOI: 10.1249/01.mss.0000185657.86065.98. View

4.
de Vries S, Bakker I, Hopman-Rock M, Hirasing R, van Mechelen W . Clinimetric review of motion sensors in children and adolescents. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59(7):670-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.11.020. View

5.
Mattocks C, Ness A, Leary S, Tilling K, Blair S, Shield J . Use of accelerometers in a large field-based study of children: protocols, design issues, and effects on precision. J Phys Act Health. 2008; 5 Suppl 1:S98-111. DOI: 10.1123/jpah.5.s1.s98. View