ArticleBMJ open2017
Is questionnaire-based sitting time inaccurate and can it be improved? A cross-sectional investigation using accelerometer-based sitting time.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetic variants related to physical activity or sedentary behaviour: a systematic review.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2021Pooled it
- Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2020Pooled it
- A comparison of self-reported and device measured sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2020Pooled it
- Sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders: A prospective cohort study.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025Article
- Occupational Physical Activity Among Pregnant Employees in the Danish Workforce: The PRECISE Occupational Cohort Profile.Clinical epidemiology · 2025Article
- Sitting less and moving more: the impact of physical activity on mortality in the population of Spain.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Associations of Sedentary Behavior with Risks of Cardiovascular Disease Events among Chinese Adults.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2024Article
- Exploring the effect of sedentary behavior on increased adiposity in middle-aged adults.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Can the bias of self-reported sitting time be corrected? A statistical model validation study based on data from 23 993 adults in the Norwegian HUNT study.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Internet-based pharmaceutical care effect on young and middle-aged patients with hypertension by the principal component analysis and the Markov cohort during COVID-19 pandemic.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2023Article
- Sedentary behaviour, physical activity, and sleep among office workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a comparison of Brazil and Sweden.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Assessment of Physical Work Demands of Home Care Workers in Norway: An Observational Study Using Wearable Sensor Technology.Annals of work exposures and health · 2022Observational
- HARTH: A Human Activity Recognition Dataset for Machine Learning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire (OSPAQ): a validation study with accelerometer-assessed measures.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Is sitting invisible? Exploring how people mentally represent sitting.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2019Article
- Calibration of Self-Reported Time Spent Sitting, Standing and Walking among Office Workers: A Compositional Data Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Technically measured compositional physical work demands and prospective register-based sickness absence (PODESA): a study protocol.BMC public health · 2019Article
- Objectively Measured Sitting and Standing in Workers: Cross-Sectional Relationship with Autonomic Cardiac Modulation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Daily domain-specific time-use composition of physical behaviors and blood pressure.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2019Article
- A cut-off of daily sedentary time and all-cause mortality in adults: a meta-regression analysis involving more than 1 million participants.BMC medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the differences between a questionnaire-based and accelerometer-based sitting time, and develop a model for improving the accuracy of questionnaire-based sitting time for predicting accelerometer-based sitting time.
methods183 workers in a cross-sectional study reported sitting time per day using a single question during the measurement period, and wore 2 Actigraph GT3X+ accelerometers on the thigh and trunk for 1-4 working days to determine their actual sitting time per day using the validated Acti4 software. Least squares regression models were fitted with questionnaire-based siting time and other self-reported predictors to predict accelerometer-based sitting time.
resultsQuestionnaire-based and accelerometer-based average sitting times were ≈272 and ≈476 min/day, respectively. A low Pearson correlation (r=0.32), high mean bias (204.1 min) and wide limits of agreement (549.8 to -139.7 min) between questionnaire-based and accelerometer-based sitting time were found. The prediction model based on questionnaire-based sitting explained 10% of the variance in accelerometer-based sitting time. Inclusion of 9 self-reported predictors in the model increased the explained variance to 41%, with 10% optimism using a resampling bootstrap validation. Based on a split validation analysis, the developed prediction model on ≈75% of the workers (n=132) reduced the mean and the SD of the difference between questionnaire-based and accelerometer-based sitting time by 64% and 42%, respectively, in the remaining 25% of the workers.
conclusionsThis study indicates that questionnaire-based sitting time has low validity and that a prediction model can be one solution to materially improve the precision of questionnaire-based sitting time.
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.