Cargando…
TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self-report tools: content analysis and systematic review
OBJECTIVE: Sedentary behaviour (SB) has distinct deleterious health outcomes, yet there is no consensus on best practice for measurement. This study aimed to identify the optimal self-report tool for population surveillance of SB, using a systematic framework. DESIGN: A framework, TAxonomy of Self-r...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5775464/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28391233 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013844 |
_version_ | 1783293914082443264 |
---|---|
author | Dall, PM Coulter, EH Fitzsimons, CF Skelton, DA Chastin, SFM |
author_facet | Dall, PM Coulter, EH Fitzsimons, CF Skelton, DA Chastin, SFM |
author_sort | Dall, PM |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Sedentary behaviour (SB) has distinct deleterious health outcomes, yet there is no consensus on best practice for measurement. This study aimed to identify the optimal self-report tool for population surveillance of SB, using a systematic framework. DESIGN: A framework, TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST), consisting of four domains (type of assessment, recall period, temporal unit and assessment period), was developed based on a systematic inventory of existing tools. The inventory was achieved through a systematic review of studies reporting SB and tracing back to the original description. A systematic review of the accuracy and sensitivity to change of these tools was then mapped against TASST domains. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches were conducted via EBSCO, reference lists and expert opinion. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: The inventory included tools measuring SB in adults that could be self-completed at one sitting, and excluded tools measuring SB in specific populations or contexts. The systematic review included studies reporting on the accuracy against an objective measure of SB and/or sensitivity to change of a tool in the inventory. RESULTS: The systematic review initially identified 32 distinct tools (141 questions), which were used to develop the TASST framework. Twenty-two studies evaluated accuracy and/or sensitivity to change representing only eight taxa. Assessing SB as a sum of behaviours and using a previous day recall were the most promising features of existing tools. Accuracy was poor for all existing tools, with underestimation and overestimation of SB. There was a lack of evidence about sensitivity to change. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited evidence, mapping existing SB tools onto the TASST framework has enabled informed recommendations to be made about the most promising features for a surveillance tool, identified aspects on which future research and development of SB surveillance tools should focus. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROPSPERO)/CRD42014009851. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5775464 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57754642018-02-02 TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self-report tools: content analysis and systematic review Dall, PM Coulter, EH Fitzsimons, CF Skelton, DA Chastin, SFM BMJ Open Public Health OBJECTIVE: Sedentary behaviour (SB) has distinct deleterious health outcomes, yet there is no consensus on best practice for measurement. This study aimed to identify the optimal self-report tool for population surveillance of SB, using a systematic framework. DESIGN: A framework, TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST), consisting of four domains (type of assessment, recall period, temporal unit and assessment period), was developed based on a systematic inventory of existing tools. The inventory was achieved through a systematic review of studies reporting SB and tracing back to the original description. A systematic review of the accuracy and sensitivity to change of these tools was then mapped against TASST domains. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches were conducted via EBSCO, reference lists and expert opinion. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: The inventory included tools measuring SB in adults that could be self-completed at one sitting, and excluded tools measuring SB in specific populations or contexts. The systematic review included studies reporting on the accuracy against an objective measure of SB and/or sensitivity to change of a tool in the inventory. RESULTS: The systematic review initially identified 32 distinct tools (141 questions), which were used to develop the TASST framework. Twenty-two studies evaluated accuracy and/or sensitivity to change representing only eight taxa. Assessing SB as a sum of behaviours and using a previous day recall were the most promising features of existing tools. Accuracy was poor for all existing tools, with underestimation and overestimation of SB. There was a lack of evidence about sensitivity to change. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited evidence, mapping existing SB tools onto the TASST framework has enabled informed recommendations to be made about the most promising features for a surveillance tool, identified aspects on which future research and development of SB surveillance tools should focus. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROPSPERO)/CRD42014009851. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-04-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5775464/ /pubmed/28391233 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013844 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Public Health Dall, PM Coulter, EH Fitzsimons, CF Skelton, DA Chastin, SFM TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self-report tools: content analysis and systematic review |
title | TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self-report tools: content analysis and systematic review |
title_full | TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self-report tools: content analysis and systematic review |
title_fullStr | TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self-report tools: content analysis and systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self-report tools: content analysis and systematic review |
title_short | TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self-report tools: content analysis and systematic review |
title_sort | taxonomy of self-reported sedentary behaviour tools (tasst) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self-report tools: content analysis and systematic review |
topic | Public Health |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5775464/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28391233 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013844 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dallpm taxonomyofselfreportedsedentarybehaviourtoolstasstframeworkfordevelopmentcomparisonandevaluationofselfreporttoolscontentanalysisandsystematicreview AT coultereh taxonomyofselfreportedsedentarybehaviourtoolstasstframeworkfordevelopmentcomparisonandevaluationofselfreporttoolscontentanalysisandsystematicreview AT fitzsimonscf taxonomyofselfreportedsedentarybehaviourtoolstasstframeworkfordevelopmentcomparisonandevaluationofselfreporttoolscontentanalysisandsystematicreview AT skeltonda taxonomyofselfreportedsedentarybehaviourtoolstasstframeworkfordevelopmentcomparisonandevaluationofselfreporttoolscontentanalysisandsystematicreview AT chastinsfm taxonomyofselfreportedsedentarybehaviourtoolstasstframeworkfordevelopmentcomparisonandevaluationofselfreporttoolscontentanalysisandsystematicreview |