IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i15p9666-d881359.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Standardised Core Outcome Set for Measurement and Reporting Sedentary Behaviour Interventional Research: The CROSBI Consensus Study

Author

Listed:
  • Fiona Curran

    (School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, D04 V1W8 Dublin, Ireland)

  • Kieran P. Dowd

    (Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Technological University of Shannon, N37 HD68 Athlone, Ireland)

  • Casey L. Peiris

    (Department of Physiotherapy, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne 3086, Australia)

  • Hidde P. van der Ploeg

    (Amsterdam UMC, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Mark S. Tremblay

    (Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L1, Canada
    Department of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada
    Department of Health Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada)

  • Grainne O’Donoghue

    (School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, D04 V1W8 Dublin, Ireland)

Abstract

Heterogeneity of descriptors and outcomes measured and reported in sedentary behaviour (SB) research hinder the meta-analysis of data and accumulation of evidence. The objective of the Core Research Outcomes for Sedentary Behaviour Interventions (CROSBI) consensus study was to identify and validate, a core outcome set (COS) to report (what, how, when to measure) in interventional sedentary behaviour studies. Outcomes, extracted from a systematic literature review, were categorized into domains and data items (COS v0.0). International experts (n = 5) provided feedback and identified additional items, which were incorporated into COS v0.1. A two round online Delphi survey was conducted to seek consensus from a wider stakeholder group and outcomes that achieved consensus in the second round COS (v0.2), were ratified by the expert panel. The final COS (v1.0) contains 53 data items across 12 domains, relating to demographics, device details, wear-time criteria, wear-time measures, posture-related measures, sedentary breaks, sedentary bouts and physical activity. Notably, results indicate that sedentary behaviour outcomes should be measured by devices that include an inclinometry or postural function. The proposed standardised COS is available openly to enhance the accumulation of pooled evidence in future sedentary behaviour intervention research and practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Fiona Curran & Kieran P. Dowd & Casey L. Peiris & Hidde P. van der Ploeg & Mark S. Tremblay & Grainne O’Donoghue, 2022. "A Standardised Core Outcome Set for Measurement and Reporting Sedentary Behaviour Interventional Research: The CROSBI Consensus Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-15, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:9666-:d:881359
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9666/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9666/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chelsea Carpenter & Chih-Hsiang Yang & Delia West, 2021. "A Comparison of Sedentary Behavior as Measured by the Fitbit and ActivPAL in College Students," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-9, April.
    2. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    3. Fiona Curran & Catherine Blake & Caitriona Cunningham & Carla Perrotta & Hidde van der Ploeg & James Matthews & Grainne O’Donoghue, 2021. "Efficacy, characteristics, behavioural models and behaviour change strategies, of non-workplace interventions specifically targeting sedentary behaviour; a systematic review and meta-analysis of rando," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-28, September.
    4. Bradley MacDonald & Xanne Janssen & Alison Kirk & Mhairi Patience & Ann-Marie Gibson, 2018. "An Integrative, Systematic Review Exploring the Research, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance of Interventions to Reduce Sedentary Behaviour in Office Workers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-29, December.
    5. Marieke De Craemer & Sebastien Chastin & Wolfgang Ahrens & Claire Bernaards & Johannes Brug & Christoph Buck & Greet Cardon & Laura Capranica & Patricia Dargent-Molina & Sara De Lepeleere & Belinda Ho, 2018. "Data on Determinants Are Needed to Curb the Sedentary Epidemic in Europe. Lessons Learnt from the DEDIPAC European Knowledge Hub," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-6, July.
    6. Roman P. Kuster & Wilhelmus J. A. Grooten & Victoria Blom & Daniel Baumgartner & Maria Hagströmer & Örjan Ekblom, 2021. "How Accurate and Precise Can We Measure the Posture and the Energy Expenditure Component of Sedentary Behaviour with One Sensor?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-13, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Duncan S. Buchan & Ukadike C. Ugbolue, 2022. "Comparing the activPAL CREA and GHLA Algorithms for the Classification of Postures and Activity in Free-Living Children," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-10, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    2. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    3. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    4. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    5. Oded Berger-Tal & Alison L Greggor & Biljana Macura & Carrie Ann Adams & Arden Blumenthal & Amos Bouskila & Ulrika Candolin & Carolina Doran & Esteban Fernández-Juricic & Kiyoko M Gotanda & Catherine , 2019. "Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(1), pages 1-8.
    6. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    7. Maryono, Maryono & Killoes, Aditya Marendra & Adhikari, Rajendra & Abdul Aziz, Ammar, 2024. "Agriculture development through multi-stakeholder partnerships in developing countries: A systematic literature review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    8. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    9. Xue-Ying Xu & Hong Kong & Rui-Xiang Song & Yu-Han Zhai & Xiao-Fei Wu & Wen-Si Ai & Hong-Bo Liu, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Noninvasive Biomarkers to Predict Hepatitis B-Related Significant Fibrosis and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-16, June.
    10. Vicente Miñana-Signes & Manuel Monfort-Pañego & Javier Valiente, 2021. "Teaching Back Health in the School Setting: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-18, January.
    11. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Katarzyna Grzybowska, 2022. "In Search of Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 in Small-Medium Enterprises—A State of the Art Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    12. Obsa Urgessa Ayana & Jima Degaga, 2022. "Effects of rural electrification on household welfare: a meta-regression analysis," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 69(2), pages 209-261, June.
    13. Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Rizzoli, Valentina & Rossi, Federica, 2023. "Innovation intermediaries' types and functions: A computational analysis of the literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    14. García-Poole, Chloe & Byrne, Sonia & Rodrigo, María José, 2019. "How do communities intervene with adolescents at psychosocial risk? A systematic review of positive development programs," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 194-209.
    15. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    16. Qing Ye & Bao-Xin Qian & Wei-Li Yin & Feng-Mei Wang & Tao Han, 2016. "Association between the HFE C282Y, H63D Polymorphisms and the Risks of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Liver Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis o," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    17. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    18. Subramaniam, Mega & Pang, Natalie & Morehouse, Shandra & Asgarali-Hoffman, S. Nisa, 2020. "Examining vulnerability in youth digital information practices scholarship: What are we missing or exhausting?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    19. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    20. Ding Zhu & Mindan Wu & Yuan Cao & Shihua Lin & Nanxia Xuan & Chen Zhu & Wen Li & Huahao Shen, 2018. "Heated humidification did not improve compliance of positive airway pressure and subjective daytime sleepiness in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:9666-:d:881359. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.