A Framework to Evaluate Devices That Assess Physical Behavior

The Compendium of Physical Activities was developed to enhance the comparability of results across studies using self-report physical activity (PA) and is used to quantify the energy cost of a wide variety of PA. We provide the second update of the Compendium, called the 2011 Compendium. The 2011 Compendium retains the previous coding scheme to identify the major category headings and specific PA by their rate of energy expenditure in MET. Modifications in the 2011 Compendium include cataloging measured MET values and their source references, when available; addition of new codes and specific activities; an update of the Compendium tracking guide that links information in the 1993, 2000, and 2011 compendia versions; and the creation of a Web site to facilitate easy access and downloading of Compendium documents. Measured MET values were obtained from a systematic search of databases using defined key words. The 2011 Compendium contains 821 codes for specific activities. Two hundred seventeen new codes were added, 68% (561/821) of which have measured MET values. Approximately half (317/604) of the codes from the 2000 Compendium were modified to improve the definitions and/or to consolidate specific activities and to update estimated MET values where measured values did not exist. Updated MET values accounted for 73% of all code changes. The Compendium is used globally to quantify the energy cost of PA in adults for surveillance activities, research studies, and, in clinical settings, to write PA recommendations and to assess energy expenditure in individuals. The 2011 Compendium is an update of a system for quantifying the energy cost of adult human PA and is a living document that is moving in the direction of being 100% evidence based.

Background The prominence of sedentary behavior research in health science has grown rapidly. With this growth there is increasing urgency for clear, common and accepted terminology and definitions. Such standardization is difficult to achieve, especially across multi-disciplinary researchers, practitioners, and industries. The Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) undertook a Terminology Consensus Project to address this need. Method First, a literature review was completed to identify key terms in sedentary behavior research. These key terms were then reviewed and modified by a Steering Committee formed by SBRN. Next, SBRN members were invited to contribute to this project and interested participants reviewed and provided feedback on the proposed list of terms and draft definitions through an online survey. Finally, a conceptual model and consensus definitions (including caveats and examples for all age groups and functional abilities) were finalized based on the feedback received from the 87 SBRN member participants who responded to the original invitation and survey. Results Consensus definitions for the terms physical inactivity, stationary behavior, sedentary behavior, standing, screen time, non-screen-based sedentary time, sitting, reclining, lying, sedentary behavior pattern, as well as how the terms bouts, breaks, and interruptions should be used in this context are provided. Conclusion It is hoped that the definitions resulting from this comprehensive, transparent, and broad-based participatory process will result in standardized terminology that is widely supported and adopted, thereby advancing future research, interventions, policies, and practices related to sedentary behaviors. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12966-017-0525-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A primary barrier to elucidating the association between sedentary behavior (SB) and health outcomes is the lack of valid monitors to assess SB in a free-living environment. The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of commercially available monitors to assess SB. Twenty overweight (mean ± SD: body mass index = 33.7 ± 5.7 kg·m(-2)) inactive, office workers age 46.5 ± 10.7 yr were directly observed for two 6-h periods while wearing an activPAL (AP) and an ActiGraph GT3X (AG). During the second observation, participants were instructed to reduce sitting time. We assessed the validity of the commonly used cut point of 100 counts per minute (AG100) and several additional AG cut points for defining SB. We used direct observation (DO) using focal sampling with duration coding to record either sedentary (sitting/lying) or nonsedentary behavior. The accuracy and precision of the monitors and the sensitivity of the monitors to detect reductions in sitting time were assessed using mixed-model repeated-measures analyses. On average, the AP and the AG100 underestimated sitting time by 2.8% and 4.9%, respectively. The correlation between the AP and DO was R2 = 0.94, and the AG100 and DO sedentary minutes was R2 = 0.39. Only the AP was able to detect reductions in sitting time. The AG 150-counts-per-minute threshold demonstrated the lowest bias (1.8%) of the AG cut points. The AP was more precise and more sensitive to reductions in sitting time than the AG, and thus, studies designed to assess SB should consider using the AP. When the AG monitor is used, 150 counts per minute may be the most appropriate cut point to define SB.