Queen Margaret University logo
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   QMU Repositories
    • eResearch
    • School of Health Sciences
    • Physiotherapy
    • View Item
    •   QMU Repositories
    • eResearch
    • School of Health Sciences
    • Physiotherapy
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self-report tools: content analysis and systematic review

    View/Open
    eResearch%204730.pdf (1.152Mb)
    Date
    2017-04-08
    Author
    Dall, P. M.
    Coulter, Elaine H.
    Fitzsimons, C. F.
    Skelton, D. A.
    Chastin, SFM
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Citation
    Dall, P., Coulter, E., Fitzsimons, C., Skelton, D. & Chastin, S. (2017) TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self-report tools: content analysis and systematic review, BMJ Open, vol. 7, , pp. e013844,
    Abstract
    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.
    Official URL
    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013844
    URI
    https://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/handle/20.500.12289/4730
    Collections
    • Physiotherapy

    Queen Margaret University: Research Repositories
    Accessibility Statement | Repository Policies | Contact Us | Send Feedback | HTML Sitemap

     

    Browse

    All QMU RepositoriesCommunities & CollectionsBy YearBy PersonBy TitleBy QMU AuthorBy Research CentreThis CollectionBy YearBy PersonBy TitleBy QMU AuthorBy Research Centre

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Queen Margaret University: Research Repositories
    Accessibility Statement | Repository Policies | Contact Us | Send Feedback | HTML Sitemap