Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30480078›Full record

ArticleSSM - population health2018

Which activities count? Using experimental data to understand conceptualizations of physical activity.

Rachel Cusatis, Dana Garbarski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SSM - population health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Rachel CusatisMedical College of Wisconsin, CIBMTR, 9200 W. Wisconsin Ave., Suite C5500, Milwaukee, WI 53226, United States.
Dana GarbarskiDepartment of Sociology, Loyola University Chicago, 1032 W. Sheridan Rd., 440 Coffey Hall, Chicago, IL 60660, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

US health surveys consistently report that men and those with higher socioeconomic status (SES) engage in more physical activity than women and lower SES counterparts, using questions that ask about physical activity during leisure time. However, social characteristics such as gender and SES shape understandings of and access to leisure-based physical activity as well as other domains where healthy activity is available - namely house work, care work, and paid work. Thus, the physical activity of US adults may look different when what counts as physical activity expands beyond leisure activity. The current study uses Amazon's Mechanical Turk platform to conduct a 2-by-2-by-2 factorial experiment that crosses three types of physical activities: leisure, house or care work, and paid work. We find that physical activity questions that prime respondents - that is, ask respondents - to consider house/care work or paid work lead to increased minutes reported of physical activity compared to not priming for physical activity, while asking about leisure is no different from having no physical activity primed. The effect on reported physical activity of priming with house/care work is stronger for women than men, demonstrating support for gendered specialization of time spent in the house and care work domain. The effects on reported physical activity of priming with house/care work and paid work are stronger for those with less education compared to more education, consistent with socioeconomic divisions in access to physical activity in house/care work and employment. This study highlights the contingence of our understanding of the physical activity of US adults on both its measurement in surveys and the social forces which shape understanding of and access to physical activity.

Indexed as

experimental designgenderhealth disparitiesMechanical Turkphysical activitysocioeconomic statussurvey methodsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID30480078
PMCPMC6240671

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.