↓ Skip to main content

Variation in population levels of sedentary time in European adults according to cross-European studies: a systematic literature review within DEDIPAC

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
30 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Variation in population levels of sedentary time in European adults according to cross-European studies: a systematic literature review within DEDIPAC
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12966-016-0397-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Loyen, Maïté Verloigne, Linde Van Hecke, Ingrid Hendriksen, Jeroen Lakerveld, Jostein Steene-Johannessen, Annemarie Koster, Alan Donnelly, Ulf Ekelund, Benedicte Deforche, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Johannes Brug, Hidde P. van der Ploeg, on behalf of the DEDIPAC consortium

Abstract

Sedentary behaviour is increasingly recognized as a public health risk that needs to be monitored at the population level. Across Europe, there is increasing interest in assessing population levels of sedentary time. This systematic literature review aims to provide an overview of all existing cross-European studies that measure sedentary time in adults, to describe the variation in population levels across these studies and to discuss the impact of assessment methods. Six literature databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus and OpenGrey) were searched, supplemented with backward- and forward tracking and searching authors' and experts' literature databases. Articles were included if they reported on observational studies measuring any form of sedentary time in the general population in two or more European countries. Each record was reviewed, extracted and assessed by two independent researchers, and disagreements were resolved by a third researcher. The review protocol of this review is registered in the PROSPERO database under registration number CRD42014010335. Of the 9,756 unique articles that were identified in the search, twelve articles were eligible for inclusion in this review, reporting on six individual studies and three Eurobarometer surveys. These studies represented 2 to 29 countries, and 321 to 65,790 participants. Eleven studies focused on total sedentary time, while one studied screen time. The majority of studies used questionnaires to assess sedentary time, while two studies used accelerometers. Total sedentary time was reported most frequently and varied from 150 (median) to 620 (mean) minutes per day across studies and countries. One third of European countries were not included in any of the studies. Objective measures of European adults are currently limited, and most studies used single-item self-reported questions without assessing sedentary behaviour types or domains. Findings varied substantially between studies, meaning that population levels of sedentary time in European adults are currently unknown. In general, people living in northern Europe countries appear to report more sedentary time than southern Europeans. The findings of this review highlight the need for standardisation of the measurement methods and the added value of cross-European surveillance of sedentary behaviour.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Unknown 167 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 17%
Student > Master 16 9%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Researcher 14 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 8%
Other 35 21%
Unknown 47 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 20%
Sports and Recreations 22 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 9%
Social Sciences 13 8%
Psychology 7 4%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 57 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,646,359
of 23,511,526 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#623
of 1,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,388
of 353,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#11
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,511,526 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,972 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,643 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.