ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Validation of a Modified Version of the German Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Causal effects of sedentary breaks on affective and cognitive parameters in daily life: a within-person encouragement design.Npj mental health research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Physical inactivity and excessive sedentary behavior (SB) are growing public health issues that require surveillance, guidelines, and targeted interventions. In addition to a variety of sophisticated technical methods, questionnaires are still an attractive method for quick, easy, comprehensive, and cost-effective estimation of SB. The aim of this study was to validate a modified version of the widely used Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ) compared to waist-worn accelerometers as an objective measurement. Contemporary explanations covering the use of smart devices have been added to the original instrument, and sitting while handwriting was explicated in more detail. Methods: Cross-sectional data from an adult sample (n = 64, 20−85 y, 25 m, 39 f) were used in this first validation study. Based on prior investigations of the SBQ, analyses were conducted in a gender-specific manner. Criterion validity was assessed using Spearman’s Rho coefficients. The Bland−Altman method was used to test the agreement between self-reported and accelerometer-measured SB time. Results: Using the modified SBQ (mSBQ), a significant gender difference in weekly sedentary time was found. Women estimated their sedentary time to be almost 50% higher than men (median 74.5 h vs. 51.0 h). No correlation was found between the questionnaire and accelerometer data for both subgroups (rho ≤ 0.281, p ≥ 0.174). Individual differences in daily SB estimation between both methods (in relation to accelerometry) were +3.82 h ± 4.36 h for women and +0.48 h ± 2.58 h for men (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The modifications to the SBQ did not improve the correlation between self-assessment of SB and objective determination. The reasons for the presented gender-specific overestimation of the participants’ own sedentary time, which contradicts the findings of other studies, remain unclear and need to be investigated further.
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.