Advancing the global physical activity agenda: recommendations for future research by the 2020 WHO physical activity and sedentary behavior guidelines development group.

BACKGROUND: In July, 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) commenced work to update the 2010 Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health and established a Guideline Development Group (GDG) comprising expert public health scientists and practitioners to inform the drafting of the 2020 Guidelines on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior. The overall task of the GDG was to review the scientific evidence and provide expert advice to the WHO on the amount of physical activity and sedentary behavior associated with optimal health in children and adolescents, adults, older adults (> 64 years), and also specifically in pregnant and postpartum women and people living with chronic conditions or disabilities. METHODS: The GDG reviewed the available evidence specific to each sub-population using systematic protocols and in doing so, identified a number of gaps in the existing literature. These proposed research gaps were discussed and verified by expert consensus among the entire GDG. RESULTS: Evidence gaps across population sub-groups included a lack of information on: 1) the precise shape of the dose-response curve between physical activity and/or sedentary behavior and several of the health outcomes studied; 2) the health benefits of light-intensity physical activity and of breaking up sedentary time with light-intensity activity; 3) differences in the health effects of different types and domains of physical activity (leisure-time; occupational; transportation; household; education) and of sedentary behavior (occupational; screen time; television viewing); and 4) the joint association between physical activity and sedentary time with health outcomes across the life course. In addition, we acknowledge the need to conduct more population-based studies in low- and middle-income countries and in people living with disabilities and/or chronic disease, and to identify how various sociodemographic factors (age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status) modify the health effects of physical activity, in order to address global health disparities. CONCLUSIONS: Although the 2020 WHO Guidelines for Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior were informed by the most up-to-date research on the health effects of physical activity and sedentary time, there is still substantial work to be done in advancing the global physical activity agenda.

Engagement, Acceptability, Usability, and Preliminary Efficacy of a Self-Monitoring Mobile Health Intervention to Reduce Sedentary Behavior in Belgian Older Adults: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Although healthy aging can be stimulated by the reduction of sedentary behavior, few interventions are available for older adults. Previous studies suggest that self-monitoring might be a promising behavior change technique to reduce older adults' sedentary behavior. However, little is known about older adults' experiences with a self-monitoring-based intervention aimed at the reduction of sedentary behavior. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate engagement, acceptability, usability, and preliminary efficacy of a self-monitoring-based mHealth intervention developed to reduce older adults' sedentary behavior. METHODS: A mixed methods study was performed among 28 community-dwelling older adults living in Flanders, Belgium. The 3-week intervention consisted of general sedentary behavior information as well as visual and tactile feedback on participants' sedentary behavior. Semistructured interviews were conducted to explore engagement with, and acceptability and usability of, the intervention. Sitting time was measured using the thigh-worn activPAL (PAL Technologies) accelerometer before and after the intervention. System usage data of the app were recorded. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and paired-samples t tests; qualitative data were thematically analyzed and presented using pen profiles. RESULTS: Participants mainly reported positive feelings regarding the intervention, referring to it as motivating, surprising, and interesting. They commonly reported that the intervention changed their thinking (ie, they became more aware of their sedentary behavior) but not their actual behavior. There were mixed opinions on the kind of feedback (ie, tactile vs visual) that they preferred. The intervention was considered easy to use, and the design was described as clear. Some problems were noticed regarding attaching and wearing the self-monitoring device. System usage data showed that the median frequency of consulting the app widely differed among participants, ranging from 0 to 20 times a day. No significant reductions were found in objectively measured sitting time. CONCLUSIONS: Although the intervention was well perceived by the majority of older adults, no reductions in sitting time were found. Possible explanations for the lack of reductions might be the short intervention duration or the fact that only bringing the habitual sedentary behavior into conscious awareness might not be sufficient to achieve behavior change. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04003324; https://tinyurl.com/y2p4g8hx.

Cost-Effectiveness and Return-on-Investment of the Dynamic Work Intervention Compared With Usual Practice to Reduce Sedentary Behavior.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment (ROI) of the Dynamic Work (DW) Intervention, a worksite intervention aimed at reducing sitting time among office workers. METHODS: In total, 244 workers were randomized to the intervention or control group. Overall sitting time, standing time, step counts, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs were measured over 12 months. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective and the ROI analysis from the employers' perspective. RESULTS: No significant differences in effects and societal costs were observed between groups. Presenteeism costs were significantly lower in the intervention group. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 0.90 at a willingness-to-pay of 20,000&OV0556;/QALY. The probability of financial savings was 0.86. CONCLUSION: The intervention may be considered cost-effective from the societal perspective depending on the willingness-to-pay. From the employer perspective, the intervention seems cost-beneficial.

Five-year cost-effectiveness analysis of the European Fans in Training (EuroFIT) physical activity intervention for men versus no intervention.

OBJECTIVES: Increasing physical activity reduces the risk of chronic illness including Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and certain types of cancer. Lifestyle interventions can increase physical activity but few successfully engage men. This study aims to investigate the 5 year cost-effectiveness of EuroFIT, a program to improve physical activity tailored specifically for male football (soccer) fans compared to a no intervention comparison group. METHODS: We developed a Markov cohort model in which the impact of improving physical activity on five chronic health conditions (colorectal cancer, Type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke and depression) and mortality was modelled. We estimated costs from a societal perspective and expressed benefits as quality adjusted life years (QALYs). We obtained data from a 4-country (England, Netherlands, Portugal and Norway) pragmatic randomised controlled trial evaluating EuroFIT, epidemiological and cohort studies, and meta-analyses. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of uncertainty in the model's parameter values on the cost-effectiveness results. We used Monte Carlo simulations to estimate uncertainty and presented this using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). We tested the robustness of the base case analysis using five scenario analyses. RESULTS: Average costs over 5 years per person receiving EuroFIT were €14,663 and per person receiving no intervention €14,598. Mean QALYs over 5 years were 4.05 per person for EuroFIT and 4.04 for no intervention. Thus, the average incremental cost per person receiving EuroFIT was €65 compared to no intervention, while the average QALY gain was 0.01. This resulted in an ICER of €5206 per QALY gained. CEACs show that the probability of EuroFIT being cost-effective compared to no intervention is 0.53, 0.56 and 0.58 at thresholds of €10,000, €22,000 and €34,000 per QALY gained, respectively. When using a time horizon of 10 years, the results suggest that EuroFIT is more effective and less expensive compared to (i.e. dominant over) no intervention with a probability of cost-effectiveness of 0.63 at a threshold of €22,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude the EuroFIT intervention is not cost-effective compared to no intervention over a period of 5 years from a societal perspective, but is more effective and less expensive (i.e. dominant) after 10 years. We thus suggest that EuroFIT can potentially improve public health in a cost-effective manner in the long term.

Effectiveness of interventions using self-monitoring to reduce sedentary behavior in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sedentary behavior occurs largely subconsciously, and thus specific behavior change techniques are needed to increase conscious awareness of sedentary behavior. Chief amongst these behavior change techniques is self-monitoring of sedentary behavior. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the short-term effectiveness of existing interventions using self-monitoring to reduce sedentary behavior in adults. METHODS: Four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library) and grey literature (Google Scholar and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched to identify appropriate intervention studies. Only (cluster-)randomized controlled trials that 1) assessed the short-term effectiveness of an intervention aimed at the reduction of sedentary behavior, 2) used self-monitoring as a behavior change technique, and 3) were conducted in a sample of adults with an average age ≥ 18 years, were eligible for inclusion. Relevant data were extracted, and Hedge's g was used as the measure of effect sizes. Random effects models were performed to conduct the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Nineteen intervention studies with a total of 2800 participants met the inclusion criteria. Results of the meta-analyses showed that interventions using self-monitoring significantly reduced total sedentary time (Hedges g = 0,32; 95% CI = 0,14 - 0,50; p = 0,001) and occupational sedentary time (Hedge's g = 0,56; 95% CI = 0,07 - 0,90; p = 0,02) on the short term. Subgroup analyses showed that significant intervention effects were only found if objective self-monitoring tools were used (g = 0,40; 95% CI = 0,19 - 0,60; p < 0,001), and if the intervention only targeted sedentary behavior (g = 0,45; 95% CI = 0,15-0,75; p = 0,004). No significant intervention effects were found on the number of breaks in sedentary behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the small sample sizes, and the large heterogeneity, results of the current meta-analysis suggested that interventions using self-monitoring as a behavior change technique have the potential to reduce sedentary behavior in adults. If future - preferably large-scale studies - can prove that the reductions in sedentary behavior are attributable to self-monitoring and can confirm the sustainability of this behavior change, multi-level interventions including self-monitoring may impact public health by reducing sedentary behavior.

The effect of a programme to improve men's sedentary time and physical activity: The European Fans in Training (EuroFIT) randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Reducing sitting time as well as increasing physical activity in inactive people is beneficial for their health. This paper investigates the effectiveness of the European Fans in Training (EuroFIT) programme to improve physical activity and sedentary time in male football fans, delivered through the professional football setting. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A total of 1,113 men aged 30-65 with self-reported body mass index (BMI) ≥27 kg/m2 took part in a randomised controlled trial in 15 professional football clubs in England, the Netherlands, Norway, and Portugal. Recruitment was between September 19, 2015, and February 2, 2016. Participants consented to study procedures and provided usable activity monitor baseline data. They were randomised, stratified by club, to either the EuroFIT intervention or a 12-month waiting list comparison group. Follow-up measurement was post-programme and 12 months after baseline. EuroFIT is a 12-week, group-based programme delivered by coaches in football club stadia in 12 weekly 90-minute sessions. Weekly sessions aimed to improve physical activity, sedentary time, and diet and maintain changes long term. A pocket-worn device (SitFIT) allowed self-monitoring of sedentary time and daily steps, and a game-based app (MatchFIT) encouraged between-session social support. Primary outcome (objectively measured sedentary time and physical activity) measurements were obtained for 83% and 85% of intervention and comparison participants. Intention-to-treat analyses showed a baseline-adjusted mean difference in sedentary time at 12 months of -1.6 minutes/day (97.5% confidence interval [CI], -14.3-11.0; p = 0.77) and in step counts of 678 steps/day (97.5% CI, 309-1.048; p < 0.001) in favor of the intervention. There were significant improvements in diet, weight, well-being, self-esteem, vitality, and biomarkers of cardiometabolic health in favor of the intervention group, but not in quality of life. There was a 0.95 probability of EuroFIT being cost-effective compared with the comparison group if society is willing to pay £1.50 per extra step/day, a maximum probability of 0.61 if society is willing to pay £1,800 per minute less sedentary time/day, and 0.13 probability if society is willing to pay £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). It was not possible to blind participants to group allocation. Men attracted to the programme already had quite high levels of physical activity at baseline (8,372 steps/day), which may have limited room for improvement. Although participants came from across the socioeconomic spectrum, a majority were well educated and in paid work. There was an increase in recent injuries and in upper and lower joint pain scores post-programme. In addition, although the five-level EuroQoL questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) is now the preferred measure for cost-effectiveness analyses across Europe, baseline scores were high (0.93), suggesting a ceiling effect for QALYs. CONCLUSION: Participation in EuroFIT led to improvements in physical activity, diet, body weight, and biomarkers of cardiometabolic health, but not in sedentary time at 12 months. Within-trial analysis suggests it is not cost-effective in the short term for QALYs due to a ceiling effect in quality of life. Nevertheless, decision-makers may consider the incremental cost for increase in steps worth the investment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN-81935608.

The Dynamic Work study: study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial of an occupational health intervention aimed at reducing sitting time in office workers.

BACKGROUND: Large volumes of sitting time have been associated with multiple health risks. To reduce sitting time of office workers working for a Dutch insurance company, the Dynamic Work intervention was developed. The primary objective of this paper is to describe the study protocol of the Dynamic Work study, which aims to evaluate if this multicomponent intervention is (cost-)effective in reducing total sitting time on the short-term (≈3 months) and longer-term (≈12 months) compared to usual practice. METHODS/DESIGN: This two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial will recruit 250 desk-based office workers working at different locations of an insurance company in the Netherlands. After baseline measurements, departments will be matched in pairs and each pair will be randomly assigned to the control or intervention condition. The multicomponent intervention contains organizational (i.e. face to face session with the head of the department), work environmental (i.e. the introduction of sit-stand desks and cycling workstations), and individual elements (i.e. counselling and activity/sitting tracker with a self-help program booklet). The counselling involves two group intervention sessions and four on-site department consultations with an occupational physiotherapist. Sitting time (primary outcome), upright time and step counts will be assessed objectively using the activPAL activity monitor at baseline, short-term (approximately 3 months) and longer-term (12 months). Other outcomes will include: self-reported lifestyle behaviours, anthropometrics, work-related outcomes (i.e. absenteeism, presenteeism, work performance, work-related stress), health-related outcomes (i.e. vitality, musculoskeletal symptoms, need for recovery, quality of life), and costs from both company and societal perspective. The study will include economic and process evaluations. DISCUSSION: This study will assess the longer-term (cost-) effectiveness of a multicomponent workplace intervention aimed at reducing sitting time in comparison with usual practice. Furthermore, the process evaluation will provide insights in factors associated with successful implementation of this intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03115645 ; Registered 13 April 2017. Retrospectively registered.

Correlates of occupational, leisure and total sitting time in working adults: results from the Singapore multi-ethnic cohort.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the health risks of sitting is accumulating. However, research identifying factors influencing sitting time in adults is limited, especially in Asian populations. This study aimed to identify socio-demographic and lifestyle correlates of occupational, leisure and total sitting time in a sample of Singapore working adults. METHODS: Data were collected between 2004 and 2010 from participants of the Singapore Multi Ethnic Cohort (MEC). Medical exclusion criteria for cohort participation were cancer, heart disease, stroke, renal failure and serious mental illness. Participants who were not working over the past 12 months and without data on sitting time were excluded from the analyses. Multivariable regression analyses were used to examine cross-sectional associations of self-reported age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, education, smoking, caloric intake and moderate-to-vigorous leisure time physical activity (LTPA) with self-reported occupational, leisure and total sitting time. Correlates were also studied separately for Chinese, Malays and Indians. RESULTS: The final sample comprised 9384 participants (54.8% male): 50.5% were Chinese, 24.0% Malay, and 25.5% Indian. For the total sample, mean occupational sitting time was 2.71 h/day, mean leisure sitting time was 2.77 h/day and mean total sitting time was 5.48 h/day. Sitting time in all domains was highest among Chinese. Age, gender, education, and caloric intake were associated with higher occupational sitting time, while ethnicity, marital status and smoking were associated with lower occupational sitting time. Marital status, smoking, caloric intake and LTPA were associated with higher leisure sitting time, while age, gender and ethnicity were associated with lower leisure sitting time. Gender, marital status, education, caloric intake and LTPA were associated with higher total sitting time, while ethnicity was associated with lower total sitting time. Stratified analyses revealed different associations within sitting domains for Indians compared to Chinese and Malays. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the need to focus on separate domains of sitting (occupational, leisure or total) when identifying which factors determine this behavior, and that the content of intervention programs should be tailored to domain-specific sitting rather than to sitting in general. Finally, our study showed ethnic differences and therefore we recommend to culturally target interventions.

Sitting too much: A hierarchy of socio-demographic correlates.

Too much sitting (extended sedentary time) is recognized as a public health concern in Europe and beyond. Time spent sedentary is influenced and conditioned by clusters of individual-level and contextual (upstream) factors. Identifying population subgroups that sit too much could help to develop targeted interventions to reduce sedentary time. We explored the relative importance of socio-demographic correlates of sedentary time in adults across Europe. We used data from 26,617 adults who participated in the 2013 Special Eurobarometer 412 "Sport and physical activity". Participants from all 28 EU Member States were randomly selected and interviewed face-to-face. Self-reported sedentary time was dichotomized into sitting less or >7.5h/day. A Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection (CHAID) algorithm was used to create a tree that hierarchically partitions the data on the basis of the independent variables (i.e., socio-demographic factors) into homogeneous (sub)groups with regard to sedentary time. This allows for the tentative identification of population segments at risk for unhealthy sedentary behaviour. Overall, 18.5% of the respondents reported sitting >7.5h/day. Occupation was the primary discriminator. The subgroup most likely to engage in extensive sitting were higher educated, had white-collar jobs, reported no difficulties with paying bills, and used the internet frequently. Clear socio-demographic profiles were identified for adults across Europe who engage in extended sedentary time. Furthermore, physically active participants were consistently less likely to engage in longer daily sitting times. In general, those with more indicators of higher wealth were more likely to spend more time sitting.

The Employer Perspective on Sustainable Employability in the Construction Industry.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the measures employers in the construction industry take to promote sustainable employability, the barriers and facilitators that influence implementation and employer needs. METHODS: Questionnaire among 499 employers and interviews with 17 employers. RESULTS: Employers expressed a need for alternative jobs for workers who can no longer perform physically demanding tasks, as well as means to stimulate proactive employee behavior. Measures frequently targeted the work environment (95%) and employee health (79%), less frequently personal development (63%) and organization (65%). Implementation was influenced by economic factors, rules and regulations, client demands, employee demands, company vision, company culture, and time/manpower/expertise. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of measures aimed at reducing physical load and the promotion of personal development are needed.

Variation in population levels of sedentary time in European children and adolescents according to cross-European studies: a systematic literature review within DEDIPAC.

BACKGROUND: A high amount of sedentary time has been proposed as a risk factor for various health outcomes in adults. While the evidence is less clear in children and adolescents, monitoring sedentary time is important to understand the prevalence rates and how this behaviour varies over time and by place. This systematic literature review aims to provide an overview of existing cross-European studies on sedentary time in children (0-12y) and adolescents (13-18y), to describe the variation in population levels of sedentary time, and to discuss the impact of assessment methods. METHODS: Six literature databases were searched (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus and OpenGrey), followed by backward- and forward tracking and searching authors' and experts' literature databases. Included articles were observational studies reporting on levels of sedentary time in the general population of children and/or adolescents in at least two European countries. Population levels were reported separately for children and adolescents. Data were reviewed, extracted and assessed by two researchers, with disagreements being resolved by a third researcher. The review protocol is published under registration number CRD42014013379 in the PROSPERO database. RESULTS: Forty-two eligible articles were identified, most were cross-sectional (n = 38). The number of included European countries per article ranged from 2 to 36. Levels of sedentary time were observed to be higher in East-European countries compared to the rest of Europe. There was a large variation in assessment methods and reported outcome variables. The majority of articles used a child-specific questionnaire (60%). Other methods included accelerometers, parental questionnaires or interviews and ecological momentary assessment tools. Television time was reported as outcome variable in 57% of included articles (ranging from a mean value of 1 h to 2.7 h in children and 1.3 h to 4.4 h in adolescents), total sedentary time in 24 % (ranging from a mean value of 192 min to 552 min in children and from 268 min to 506 min in adolescents). CONCLUSION: A substantial number of published studies report on levels of sedentary time in children and adolescents across European countries, but there was a large variation in assessment methods. Questionnaires (child specific) were used most often, but they mostly measured specific screen-based activities and did not assess total sedentary time. There is a need for harmonisation and standardisation of objective and subjective methods to assess sedentary time in children and adolescents to enable comparison across countries.

Variation in population levels of physical activity in European children and adolescents according to cross-European studies: a systematic literature review within DEDIPAC.

BACKGROUND: Regular physical activity is associated with physical, social and mental health benefits, whilst insufficient physical activity is associated with several negative health outcomes (e.g. metabolic problems). Population monitoring of physical activity is important to gain insight into prevalence of compliance to physical activity recommendations, groups at risk and changes in physical activity patterns. This review aims to provide an overview of all existing studies that measure physical activity in youth, in cross-European studies, to describe the variation in population levels of physical activity and to describe and define challenges regarding assessment methods that are used. METHODS: A systematic search was performed on six databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus and OpenGrey), supplemental forward- and backward tracking was done and authors' and experts' literature databases were searched to identify relevant articles. Journal articles or reports that reported levels of physical activity in the general population of youth from cross-European studies were included. Data were reviewed, extracted and assessed by two researchers, with disagreements being resolved by a third researcher. The review protocol of this review is published under registration number CRD42014010684 in the PROSPERO database. RESULTS: The search resulted in 9756 identified records of which 30 articles were included in the current review. This review revealed large differences between countries in prevalence of compliance to physical activity recommendations (i.e. 60 min of daily moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA)) measured subjectively (5-47%) and accelerometer measured minutes of MVPA (23-200 min). Overall boys and children were more active than girls and adolescents. Different measurement methods (subjective n = 12, objective n = 18) and reported outcome variables (n = 17) were used in the included articles. Different accelerometer intensity thresholds used to define MVPA resulted in substantial differences in MVPA between studies conducted in the same countries when assessed objectively. CONCLUSIONS: Reported levels of physical activity and prevalence of compliance to physical activity recommendations in youth showed large variation across European countries. This may reflect true variation in physical activity as well as variation in assessment methods and reported outcome variables. Standardization across Europe, of methods to assess physical activity in youth and reported outcome variables is warranted, preferably moving towards a pan-European surveillance system combining objective and self-report methods.

Variation in population levels of sedentary time in European adults according to cross-European studies: a systematic literature review within DEDIPAC.

BACKGROUND: Sedentary behaviour is increasingly recognized as a public health risk that needs to be monitored at the population level. Across Europe, there is increasing interest in assessing population levels of sedentary time. This systematic literature review aims to provide an overview of all existing cross-European studies that measure sedentary time in adults, to describe the variation in population levels across these studies and to discuss the impact of assessment methods. METHODS: Six literature databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus and OpenGrey) were searched, supplemented with backward- and forward tracking and searching authors' and experts' literature databases. Articles were included if they reported on observational studies measuring any form of sedentary time in the general population in two or more European countries. Each record was reviewed, extracted and assessed by two independent researchers, and disagreements were resolved by a third researcher. The review protocol of this review is registered in the PROSPERO database under registration number CRD42014010335. RESULTS: Of the 9,756 unique articles that were identified in the search, twelve articles were eligible for inclusion in this review, reporting on six individual studies and three Eurobarometer surveys. These studies represented 2 to 29 countries, and 321 to 65,790 participants. Eleven studies focused on total sedentary time, while one studied screen time. The majority of studies used questionnaires to assess sedentary time, while two studies used accelerometers. Total sedentary time was reported most frequently and varied from 150 (median) to 620 (mean) minutes per day across studies and countries. CONCLUSIONS: One third of European countries were not included in any of the studies. Objective measures of European adults are currently limited, and most studies used single-item self-reported questions without assessing sedentary behaviour types or domains. Findings varied substantially between studies, meaning that population levels of sedentary time in European adults are currently unknown. In general, people living in northern Europe countries appear to report more sedentary time than southern Europeans. The findings of this review highlight the need for standardisation of the measurement methods and the added value of cross-European surveillance of sedentary behaviour.

European Sitting Championship: Prevalence and Correlates of Self-Reported Sitting Time in the 28 European Union Member States.

OBJECTIVE: Sedentary behaviour is increasingly recognized as an important health risk, but comparable data across Europe are scarce. The objective of this study was to explore the prevalence and correlates of self-reported sitting time in adults across and within the 28 European Union Member States. METHODS: This study reports data from the Special Eurobarometer 412. In 2013, 27,919 randomly selected Europeans (approximately 1000 per Member State) were interviewed face-to-face. Sitting time on a usual day was self-reported and dichotomised into sitting less- and more than 7.5 hours per day. Uni- and multivariate odds ratios of sitting more than 7.5 hours per day were assessed by country and socio-demographic variables using binary logistic regression analyses. The analyses were stratified by country to study the socio-demographic correlates of sitting time within the different countries. RESULTS: A total of 26,617 respondents were included in the analyses. Median sitting time was five hours per day. Across Europe, 18.5 percent of the respondents reported to sit more than 7.5 hours per day, with substantial variation between countries (ranging from 8.9 to 32.1 percent). In general, northern European countries reported more sitting than countries in the south of Europe. 'Current occupation' and 'age when stopped education' were found to be the strongest correlates of sitting time, both across Europe and within most Member States. Compared to manual workers, the odds ratio of sitting more than 7.5 hours per day was 5.00 for people with white collar occupations, 3.84 for students, and 3.65 for managers. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation in self-reported sitting time among European adults across countries as well as socio-demographic groups. While regular surveillance of (objectively measured) sedentary behaviour is needed, the results of this study provide entry points for developing targeted interventions aimed at highly sedentary populations, such as people with sedentary occupations.

Embedding sustainable physical activities into the everyday lives of adults with intellectual disabilities: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adults with intellectual disability (ID) are physically very inactive. This study will compare two approaches to increasing physical activity in adults with ID: a lifestyle physical activity (light-moderate intensity) approach and a structured exercise (moderate-vigorous intensity) approach. The trial will compare the short-term (3-month) and long-term (9-month) outcomes and sustainability of each approach with a usual-care control group. METHODS/DESIGN: A three-arm randomised controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted. Ninety adults with ID aged 18-55 will be randomly assigned to one of three groups: 1) a lifestyle physical activity group (n = 30), 2) a structured exercise group (n = 30), or 3) a usual care control group (n = 30). Participants in both groups will receive a 12-week intervention delivered by exercise specialists in the community with disability service staff, after which intervention will continue for 6 months, delivered by disability service staff only. Primary outcomes are aerobic fitness, 12-hour energy expenditure, and proxy-reported everyday physical activity. Secondary outcomes include objectively assessed physical activity and sedentary behaviour, intervention compliance, functional walking capacity, participation in domestic activities, muscle strength, body composition, psychosocial outcomes, quality of life and health care costs. DISCUSSION: The trial results will determine the effectiveness and sustainability of two approaches to increasing physical activity and exercise among adults with ID. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN77889248 (18 April 2012).

Towards the integration and development of a cross-European research network and infrastructure: the DEterminants of DIet and Physical ACtivity (DEDIPAC) Knowledge Hub.

To address major societal challenges and enhance cooperation in research across Europe, the European Commission has initiated and facilitated 'joint programming'. Joint programming is a process by which Member States engage in defining, developing and implementing a common strategic research agenda, based on a shared vision of how to address major societal challenges that no Member State is capable of resolving independently. Setting up a Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) should also contribute to avoiding unnecessary overlap and repetition of research, and enable and enhance the development and use of standardised research methods, procedures and data management. The Determinants of Diet and Physical Activity (DEDIPAC) Knowledge Hub (KH) is the first act of the European JPI 'A Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life'. The objective of DEDIPAC is to contribute to improving understanding of the determinants of dietary, physical activity and sedentary behaviours. DEDIPAC KH is a multi-disciplinary consortium of 46 consortia and organisations supported by joint programming grants from 12 countries across Europe. The work is divided into three thematic areas: (I) assessment and harmonisation of methods for future research, surveillance and monitoring, and for evaluation of interventions and policies; (II) determinants of dietary, physical activity and sedentary behaviours across the life course and in vulnerable groups; and (III) evaluation and benchmarking of public health and policy interventions aimed at improving dietary, physical activity and sedentary behaviours. In the first three years, DEDIPAC KH will organise, develop, share and harmonise expertise, methods, measures, data and other infrastructure. This should further European research and improve the broad multi-disciplinary approach needed to study the interactions between multilevel determinants in influencing dietary, physical activity and sedentary behaviours. Insights will be translated into more effective interventions and policies for the promotion of healthier behaviours and more effective monitoring and evaluation of the impacts of such interventions.

The prevalence and correlates of sitting in European adults - a comparison of 32 Eurobarometer-participating countries.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged sitting is an emerging health risk. However, multi-country comparative sitting data are sparse. This paper reports the prevalence and correlates of sitting time in 32 European countries. METHODS: Data from the Eurobarometer 64.3 study were used, which included nationally representative samples (n = 304-1,102) from 32 European countries. Face-to-face interviews were conducted during November and December 2005. Usual weekday sitting time was assessed using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (short-version). Sitting time was compared by country, age, gender, years of education, general health status, usual activity and physical activity. Multivariable-adjusted analyses assessed the odds of belonging to the highest sitting quartile. RESULTS: Data were available for 27,637 adults aged 15-98 years. Overall, mean reported weekday sitting time was 309 min/day (SD 184 min/day). There was a broad geographical pattern and some of the lowest amounts of daily sitting were reported in southern (Malta and Portugal means 194-236 min/day) and eastern (Romania and Hungary means 191-276 min/day) European countries; and some of the highest amounts of daily sitting were reported in northern European countries (Germany, Benelux and Scandinavian countries; means 407-335 min/day). Multivariable-adjusted analyses showed adults with low physical activity levels (OR = 5.10, CI95 = 4.60-5.66), those with high sitting in their main daily activity (OR = 2.99, CI95 = 2.74-3.25), those with a bad/very bad general health state (OR = 1.87, CI95 = 1.63-2.15) and higher education levels (OR = 1.48, CI95 = 1.38-1.59) were more likely to be in the highest quartile of daily sitting time. Adults within Greece (OR = 2.91, CI95 = 2.51-3.36) and Netherlands (OR = 2.56, CI95 = 2.22-2.94) were most likely to be in the highest quartile. High-sit/low-active participants comprised 10.1% of the sample. Adults self-reporting bad/very bad general health state (OR = 4.74, CI95 = 3.97-5.65), those within high sitting in their main daily activities (OR = 2.87, CI95 = 2.52-3.26) and adults aged ≥65 years (OR = 1.53, CI95 = 1.19-1.96) and were more likely to be in the high-sit/low-active group. CONCLUSIONS: Weekday sitting time and its demographic correlates varied considerably across European countries, with adults in north-western European countries sitting the most. Sitting is prevalent across Europe and merits attention by preventive interventions.

Longitudinal sedentary behavior changes in adolescents in Ho Chi Minh City.

BACKGROUND: Sedentary behavior is associated with increased risk of chronic disease and sedentary behavior is increasing among adolescents. Data on changes in sedentary behavior in developing countries are limited. PURPOSE: To describe 5-year longitudinal changes in nonschool sedentary hours among urban adolescents in Ho Chi Minh City, and to identify correlates with this change. METHODS: This is a 5-year longitudinal cohort with systematic random sampling of 759 students from 18 junior high schools. All measures were taken annually between 2004 and 2009. Sedentary behavior was assessed by self-report and accelerometry. Generalized linear latent and mixed models were used to analyze the data in 2011. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2009, self-reported time spent in nonschool sedentary behavior increased from 498 to 603 minutes/day. In the 5th survey year, boys and girls (aged 16 years) were, respectively, 3.6 times (95% CI=2.3, 6.0) and 3.1 times (95% CI= 1.8, 5.0) more likely to spend ≥2 hours/day on screen time compared with baseline (aged 12 years). Accelerometer data adjusted for wearing time revealed that boys and girls aged 16 years had, respectively, 78 minutes/day (95% CI=48, 104) and 69 minutes/day (95% CI=34, 95) more nonschool sedentary time than those at the first accelerometer assessment (at age 13 years). Girls in the highest socioeconomic quartile spent an additional 90 minutes/day in sedentary behavior compared with girls in the lowest quartile (95% CI=52, 128). CONCLUSIONS: Nonschool sedentary behavior increased among Vietnamese adolescents with age. The largest increase was in recreational screen time (28%), which would be the most obvious target for preventive health strategies.

Prolonged sitting in cars: prevalence, socio-demographic variations, and trends.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged sitting is detrimentally associated with health outcomes. However, the prevalence and characteristics of those who sit in cars for long periods are not well understood. This study examined the population prevalence, socio-demographic variations, and trends for prolonged sitting in cars among adults. METHODS: Using the Sydney Greater Metropolitan Area Household Travel Survey, the prevalence of prolonged sitting time in cars (≥2 h/day) was calculated for four 3-year periods (1997-99, 2000-02, 2003-05, and 2006-08) for each population subgroup. Trends were calculated as the mean change in prevalence between adjacent survey periods. RESULTS: Cars were used for 66% of the total trips recorded (n=336,505). The prevalence of prolonged sitting time in cars was 16-18% in men, and 10-12% in women. Relatively higher prevalence rates were found among middle-age groups (men: 20-22%, women: 12-15%), full-time workers (men: 21-24%, women: 14-15%), those with higher income (men: 21-25%, women: 14-16%), couples with children (men: 20-21%, women: 12-14%), and those living in outer suburbs (men: 20-23%, women: 12-13%). Trends were stable in men, but increasing in women. Several subgroups (older age; living in regional suburbs) also showed increasing trends. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide evidence to inform integrated approaches to measurement and policy development on prolonged car use among the public health, urban planning, and transport sectors.

Physical activity promotion in the physical therapy setting: perspectives from practitioners and students.

BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is a major risk factor for chronic disease. Primary health care practitioners are well placed to promote a physically active lifestyle. The perceptions and practice of physical therapists on their role in physical activity promotion are not well known. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the knowledge, confidence, role perception, barriers, feasibility, and counseling practice of physical therapists and physical therapist students regarding the promotion of nontreatment physical activity for better health. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey was conducted. METHODS: In 2008, 321 (54%) of a random sample of all physical therapists registered in New South Wales, Australia, responded to a survey on their knowledge, confidence, role perception, barriers, feasibility, and counseling practice with regard to promoting a physically active lifestyles to their patients. Physical therapist students (n=279) completed the same survey but without the questions on barriers and counseling practice. RESULTS: Physical therapists and physical therapist students consider that it is part of their role to give their patients nontreatment physical activity advice. Overall, they reported having adequate knowledge and skills to undertake this role. Incorporating advice into normal consultations is deemed the most feasible form of lifestyle physical activity promotion in physical therapist practice. LIMITATIONS: The cross-sectional nature of this study makes it difficult to determine cause and effect relationships. Some selection bias may have occurred, as the physical therapists who completed the questionnaires may have been those most interested in physical activity promotion. CONCLUSIONS: Physical therapist practice appears to be an excellent avenue for promoting a physically active lifestyle and could potentially play an important public health role.