ArticleBMC public health2014
Adult total wellness: group differences based on sitting time and physical activity level.
Article in BMC public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn increasing body of evidence associates a high level of sitting time with poor health outcomes. The benefits of moderate to vigorous-intensity physical activities to various aspects of health are now well documented; however, individuals may engage in moderate-intensity physical activity for at least 30 minutes on five or more days of the week and still exhibit a high level of sitting time. This purpose of this study was to examine differences in total wellness among adults relative to high/low levels of sitting time combined with insufficient/sufficient physical activity (PA). The construct of total wellness incorporates a holistic approach to the body, mind and spirit components of life, an approach which may be more encompassing than some definitions of health.
methodsData were obtained from 226 adult respondents (27±6 years), including 116 (51%) males and 110 (49%) females. Total PA and total sitting time were assessed with the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) (short-version). The Wellness Evaluation of Lifestyle Inventory was used to assess total wellness. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was utilised to assess the effects of the sitting time/physical activity group on total wellness. A covariate was included to partial out the effects of age, sex and work status (student or employed). Cross-tabulations were used to show associations between the IPAQ derived high/low levels of sitting time with insufficient/sufficient PA and the three total wellness groups (i.e. high level of wellness, moderate wellness and wellness development needed).
resultsThe majority of the participants were located in the high total sitting time and sufficient PA group. There were statistical differences among the IPAQ groups for total wellness [F (2,220)=32.5 (p<0.001)]. A Chi-square test revealed a significant difference in the distribution of the IPAQ categories within the classification of wellness [χ2 (N=226)=54.5, p<.001]. One-hundred percent (100%) of participants who self-rated as high total sitting time/insufficient PA were found in the wellness development needed group. In contrast, 72% of participants who were located in the low total sitting time/sufficient PA group were situated in the moderate wellness group.
conclusionMany participants who meet the physical activity guidelines, in this sample, sit for longer periods of time than the median Australian sitting time. An understanding of the effects of the enhanced PA and reduced sitting time on total wellness can add to the development of public health initiatives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.