Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30744604›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

Different analysis methods of Scottish and English child physical activity data explain the majority of the difference between the national prevalence estimates.

Chloë Williamson, Paul Kelly, Tessa Strain

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Measurement of physical activity and sedentary behavior in national health surveys, South America.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2022
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. "Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2020
    Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Chloë WilliamsonPhysical Activity for Health Research Centre, Institute of Sport, Physical Education, and Health Sciences, Moray House School of Education and Sport, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. S1231185@sms.ed.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2148-7586
Paul KellyPhysical Activity for Health Research Centre, Institute of Sport, Physical Education, and Health Sciences, Moray House School of Education and Sport, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1946-9848
Tessa StrainPhysical Activity for Health Research Centre, Institute of Sport, Physical Education, and Health Sciences, Moray House School of Education and Sport, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7086-1047

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe percentages of children in Scotland and England meeting the aerobic physical activity (PA) recommendation differ greatly according to estimates derived from the respective national health surveys. The Scottish Health Survey (SHeS) usually estimates over 70% meeting the recommendation; Health Survey for England (HSE) estimates are usually below 25%. It is plausible that these differences originate from different analysis methods. The HSE monitors the percentage of children in England that undertake 60 min of moderate-to-vigorous PA on each day of the week ('Daily Minimum Method' (DMM)). The SHeS monitors the proportion that undertakes at least seven sessions of moderate-to-vigorous PA, with an average daily duration ≥60 min in Scotland ('Weekly Average Method' (WAM)). We aimed to establish how much this difference in analysis methods influences prevalence estimates.

methodsPA data from 5 to 15 year olds in the 2015 HSE and SHeS were reanalysed (weighted n = 3840 and 965, respectively). Two comparable pairs of estimates were derived: a DMM and WAM estimate from the HSE not including travel to/from school, and WAM estimates from the HSE and the SHeS including travel to/from school. It is not possible to calculate a DMM estimate from the SHeS due to questionnaire design. Results were presented for the total samples, and by sex and age sub-groups.

resultsThe HSE WAM estimate was 31.7 (95% CI: 30.2-33.3) percentage points higher than the DMM estimate (54.3% (95% CI: 52.6-56.0) and 22.6% (95% CI: 21.2-24.1) respectively). The magnitude of this difference differed by age group but not sex. When comparable WAM estimates were derived from the SHeS and the HSE, the SHeS was 11.8 percentage points higher (73.6% (95% CI: 69.8-77.1) and 61.8% (95% CI: 60.2-63.5) respectively). The magnitude of this difference differed by age group and sex.

conclusionsThe results indicate that the difference in the analysis method explains the majority (approximately 30 percentage points) of the difference in the child PA prevalence estimates between Scotland and England (leaving approximately 12 percentage points representing true differences or related to questionnaire differences). These results will help national surveillance determine how to increase comparability between the U.K. home nations.

Indexed as

ExerciseGuidelines as TopicAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolEnglandFemaleGuideline AdherenceHealth SurveysHumansMalePrevalenceScotlandChildrenPhysical activitySurveillance

Identifiers

PMID30744604
PMCPMC6371508

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.