Subjective assessment of sedentary behavior between theory and practice: Pilot study using the “Sedentary meter”

Ana Cikač Orcid logo ,
Ana Cikač
Contact Ana Cikač

Institute for Kinesiology Research, Science and Research Centre Koper , Koper , Slovenia

Kaja Teraž Orcid logo ,
Kaja Teraž

Clinical University Department of Medical, Surgical, and Health Sciences, University of Trieste , Trieste , Italy

Institute for Kinesiology Research, Science and Research Centre Koper , Koper , Slovenia

Saša Pišot Orcid logo
Saša Pišot

Institute for Kinesiology Research, Science and Research Centre Koper , Koper , Slovenia

Published: 15.12.2024.

Volume 16, Issue 2 (2024)

pp. 25-32;

https://doi.org/10.31382/eqol.241204

Abstract

Although sedentary behavior (SB) is still an under-researched area, some studies have shown a significant association between prolonged sitting and an increased risk of mortality, due to various causes, independent of physical activity. Despite the health risks, there are currently no specific guidelines for individuals to self-assess their SB. A pilot observational study was conducted as part of the »Knowledge for Health« event. A short online quiz “Sedentary meter” was developed, consisting of a pictorial scale to help event participants assess their daily sedentary time and to promote a better understanding of the associated health risks. The quiz questions were formulated based on the WHO definition of SB. The participants’ task was to subjectively estimate the amount of sedentary time in various types of SB on a typical day. The results obtained for SB could then be immediately compared with the figurative scale based on the WHO guidelines. The analysis confirmed SB (533.0±224.7 min/day) in all age groups, although possible differences according to the type of SB were noted. Despite statistically non-significant differences, those between age groups may indicate the extent to which SB can be individualized. The differences between age groups may indicate the importance of considering SB which can be targeted based on each age group's daily routine. The simple tool for accessing SB raised awareness of which specific type of SB accounts for the majority of participants' daily sedentary time. The self-critical acceptance of the “poor results” across all age groups shows the effectiveness of the initiative in raising awareness of SB issues.

Keywords

References

Canva. (2023). Design tool. -. https://doi.org/-
Chastin, S. F. M., Buck, C., Freiberger, E., Murphy, M., Brug, J., Cardon, G., O’Donoghue, G., Pigeot, I., & Oppert, J.-M. (2015). Systematic literature review of determinants of sedentary behaviour in older adults: a DEDIPAC study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-015-0292-3
Chau, J. Y., Grunseit, A., Midthjell, K., Holmen, J., Holmen, T. L., Bauman, A. E., & Van der Ploeg, H. P. (2015). Sedentary behaviour and risk of mortality from all-causes and cardiometabolic diseases in adults: evidence from the HUNT3 population cohort. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 49(11), 737–742. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2012-091974
Dempsey, P. C., Larsen, R. N., Dunstan, D. W., Owen, N., & Kingwell, B. A. (2018). Sitting Less and Moving More. Hypertension, 72(5), 1037–1046. https://doi.org/10.1161/hypertensionaha.118.11190
Edelmann, D., Pfirrmann, D., Heller, S., Dietz, P., Reichel, J. L., Werner, A. M., Schäfer, M., Tibubos, A. N., Deci, N., Letzel, S., Simon, P., & Kalo, K. (2022). Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in University Students–The Role of Gender, Age, Field of Study, Targeted Degree, and Study Semester. Frontiers in Public Health, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.821703

Citation

Data Availability

All participants included in this study confirmed that their data would be used in accordance with the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation.

Copyright

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Most read articles