The sedentary profile of primary care patients

Abstract

A B S T R AC TBackground Primary care is one of the key environments in which to target public health and sedentary behaviours are increasing being linked to several adverse health outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and correlates of sedentary behaviour in an adult primary care population.Methods The International Physical Activity Questionnaire was used to collect data on the weekday sitting of participants. Stratified random sampling based on urban/rural location and deprivation was used to identify three primary care centres from which the sample was drawn.Results Data were collected from 885 participants (96.7% response rate) of whom 64% (n ¼ 565) were female and 36% (n ¼ 320) were male.The mean age was 42 (SD 14.2). Overall 48% (n ¼ 418) of participants sat for .4 h daily with a median sitting time of 240 min .Attendance at the urban non-deprived primary care centre (B ¼ 0.237, P , 0.001), male gender (B ¼ 0.284, P , 0.001), overweight/obesity (B ¼ 0.081, P ¼ 0.048) and having a disability or injury limiting physical activity (B ¼ 0.093, P ¼ 0.028) were associated with higher sitting times.Conclusion This study established the factors that influence sedentary behaviours in the primary care population which can help inform the development and targeting of promotional strategies.

Sedentary behavior, physical inactivity, abdominal obesity and obesity in adults and older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Two other considerations are worth mentioning, as follows: a) the possibility of collecting data on different outcomes from the same instrument, such as the IPAC, which is, for example, used to both collect data on physical activity time [56], and to observe sitting time [46], and b) the use of different cut-off points for objective and subjective measures in the analysis of both sedentary lifestyle and PI (for example, in the use of questionnaires and accelerometers). One exception is the standardization of the cut-off point for sedentary lifestyle in pedometers (<5000 steps/day) [53,58].…”

“…(B) Subjective measures Validated questionnaires were utilized in the following seven studies: the "Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire" in Europe [65]; the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) in Brazil [56,59], Europe and the U.S.A [48], and Ireland [46]; the GPAQ in Germany [62], and the Active Australia Survey in Australia [47]. Seven other studies used self-report structured questionnaires (Table 2).…”

“…For example, the IPAQ Questionnaire considered PI as performing less than 150 min of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week [56,59]. This same questionnaire was also used to define sedentary lifestyle as >8 h of sitting time per day [46,48]. For the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ), PI was defined as <600 MET-minutes/week MVPA [62].…”

“…Most studies were performed in developed countries. The studies were carried out in the following countries: the United States [37,45,53,54,57,60,61], Sweden [63], Australia [47,58,64], Europe and the USA [48], the United Kingdom [42,44], Germany [43,62], Brazil [51,56,59], Spain [49,52], Ireland [46], and Uganda [54]. The participants' age ranged between 18 and 92 years.…”

Stand up, stand out. Feasibility of an active break targeting prolonged sitting in university students

“…Adults younger than 25 demonstrate higher daily sedentary times and greater physical activity levels in comparison to those aged between 25 and 34 years, thus may be more open to an intervention which uses a brief bout of physical activity to disrupt prolonged sitting. 13,35,36 The utilization of a preexisting implementation questionnaire, which was concise and simple to administer, enabled us to determine three measures of implementation success without undue burden on participants. 27 Although the validity and reliability of the questionnaire were established using a cohort of implementation scientists and mental health clinicians, we chose to administer it to our student cohort, who in this case were both the designers and the target group of the intervention.…”