• A comparison of self-reported and device measured sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

      Prince, Stephanie; Cardilli, Luca; Reed, Jennifer; Saunders, Travis; Kite, Chris; Douillette, Kevin; Fournier, Karine; Buckley, John; University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Public Health Agency of Canada, Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, University of Chester, University of Ottawa, University of Prince Edward Island, Aston University
      Background 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). Objective The primary objective of this systematic review was to compare self-report versus device measures of SB in adults. Methods 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. Results 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). Conclusions 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.
    • Patients’ Perspectives of Oral and Injectable Type 2 Diabetes Medicines, Their Body Weight and Medicine-Taking Behavior in the UK: A Systematic Review and Meta-Ethnography

      Psarou, Aikaterini; Cooper, Helen; Wilding, John P. H. (Springer Healthcare, 2018-08-17)
      AbstractThe aim of this review is to identify peoples’ perspectives of their glucose-lowering and anti-obesity drugs in relation to diabetes and weight control and to explore how these views affect medication adherence. Theoretical perspectives associated with medicine-taking behavior are also explored. The systematic review was based on a meta-ethnography of qualitative studies identified through a search of 12 medical and social science databases and subsequent citation searches. The quality of all studies was assessed. Sixteen studies were included with data from 360 UK individuals. No relevant studies were identified which focused on anti-obesity and non-insulin injectable drugs. The review revealed that the patients’ perspectives and emotional state were influenced by starting and/or changing to a new glucose-lowering medicine. These were also influenced by prior medication experience, disease perceptions and interactions with clinicians. Despite reports of positive experiences with and positive perceptions of medicines, and of participation in strategies to regain life control, medication non-adherence was common. Accepting glucose-lowering medicines impacted on the individual’s perception of lifestyle changes, and it was notable that weight loss was not perceived as a strategy to support diabetes management. Synthesis revealed that more than one theory is required to explain medicine-taking behavior. New insights into the underlying factors of poor adherence and the specific practical issues identified in this review can help in the development of patient-centered interventions.Funding: Diabetes UK.