Division of Cardiac Prevention and Rehabilitation, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Centre for Surveillance and Applied Research, Public Health Agency of Canada, 785 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, K1A 0K9, Canada.
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020 Mar 4;17(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s12966-020-00938-3.
Sedentary behaviour (SB) is a risk factor for chronic disease and premature mortality. While many individual studies have examined the reliability and validity of various self-report measures for assessing SB, it is not clear, in general, how self-reported SB (e.g., questionnaires, logs, ecological momentary assessments (EMAs)) compares to device measures (e.g., accelerometers, inclinometers).
The primary objective of this systematic review was to compare self-report versus device measures of SB in adults.
Six bibliographic databases were searched to identify all studies which included a comparable self-report and device measure of SB in adults. Risk of bias within and across studies was assessed. Results were synthesized using meta-analyses.
The review included 185 unique studies. A total of 123 studies comprising 173 comparisons and data from 55,199 participants were used to examine general criterion validity. The average mean difference was -105.19 minutes/day (95% CI: -127.21, -83.17); self-report underestimated sedentary time by ~1.74 hours/day compared to device measures. Self-reported time spent sedentary at work was ~40 minutes higher than when assessed by devices. Single item measures performed more poorly than multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries. On average, when compared to inclinometers, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries were not significantly different, but had substantial amount of variability (up to 6 hours/day within individual studies) with approximately half over-reporting and half under-reporting. A total of 54 studies provided an assessment of reliability of a self-report measure, on average the reliability was good (ICC = 0.66).
Evidence from this review suggests that single-item self-report measures generally underestimate sedentary time when compared to device measures. For accuracy, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries with a shorter recall period should be encouraged above single item questions and longer recall periods if sedentary time is a primary outcome of study. Users should also be aware of the high degree of variability between and within tools. Studies should exert caution when comparing associations between different self-report and device measures with health outcomes.
PROSPERO CRD42019118755.
久坐行为（SB）是慢性病和早逝的一个风险因素。虽然许多单独的研究已经检查了各种用于评估 SB 的自我报告测量的可靠性和有效性，但总体而言，自我报告的 SB（例如问卷、日志、生态瞬时评估（EMA））与设备测量（例如加速度计、倾斜计）相比如何，尚不清楚。
本系统评价的主要目的是比较成年人的自我报告和设备测量的 SB。
搜索了六个书目数据库，以确定所有包含成年人 SB 的可比自我报告和设备测量的研究。对研究内和研究间的偏倚风险进行了评估。使用荟萃分析综合结果。
综述共纳入 185 项独特的研究。共有 123 项研究，包含 173 项比较和 55199 名参与者的数据，用于检查一般标准效度。平均平均差异为-105.19 分钟/天（95%CI：-127.21，-83.17）；与设备测量相比，自我报告低估了久坐时间约 1.74 小时/天。自我报告的工作时久坐时间比设备测量的要高约 40 分钟。单项测量的表现不如多项问卷、EMA 和日志/日记差。平均而言，与倾斜计相比，多项问卷、EMA 和日志/日记没有显著差异，但具有很大的变异性（个体研究中高达 6 小时/天），大约一半报告过高，一半报告过低。共有 54 项研究评估了自我报告测量的可靠性，平均可靠性良好（ICC = 0.66）。
本综述的证据表明，与设备测量相比，单项自我报告测量通常低估了久坐时间。为了准确性，如果久坐时间是研究的主要结果，应鼓励使用较短回忆期的多项目问卷、EMA 和日志/日记，而不是单项问题和较长回忆期。用户还应注意工具之间和工具内部的高度变异性。当比较不同的自我报告和设备测量与健康结果之间的关联时，研究人员应谨慎行事。
PROSPERO CRD42019118755。
