Sedentary Time and Physical Activity Surveillance Through Accelerometer Pooling in Four European Countries
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to pool, harmonise and re-analyse national accelerometer data from adults in four European countries in order to describe population levels of sedentary time and physical inactivity. METHODS: Five cross-sectional studies were included from England, Portugal, Norway and Sweden. ActiGraph accelerometer count data were centrally processed using the same algorithms. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to study the associations of sedentary time and physical inactivity with sex, age, weight status and educational level, in both the pooled sample and the separate study samples. RESULTS: Data from 9509 participants were used. On average, participants were sedentary for 530 min/day, and accumulated 36 min/day of moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity. Twenty-three percent accumulated more than 10 h of sedentary time/day, and 72% did not meet the physical activity recommendations. Nine percent of all participants were classified as high sedentary and low active. Participants from Norway showed the highest levels of sedentary time, while participants from England were the least physically active. Age and weight status were positively associated with sedentary time and not meeting the physical activity recommendations. Men and higher-educated people were more likely to be highly sedentary, while women and lower-educated people were more likely to be inactive. CONCLUSIONS: We found high levels of sedentary time and physical inactivity in four European countries. Older people and obese people were most likely to display these behaviours and thus deserve special attention in interventions and policy planning. In order to monitor these behaviours, accelerometer-based cross-European surveillance is recommended.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Today less than 30% of the adult population follows the WHO's recommendations for participation in physical activity and exercise training.
“today < 30% of the adult population follows the WHO’s recommendations for participation in physical activity and exercise training”
From International urogynecology consultation chapter 3 committee 2; conservative treatment of patient with pelvic organ prolapse: Pelvic floor muscle training (2022) · cites this paper as [96]
The Key Points report that 72% of adults studied in four European countries did not meet physical activity recommendations; the Discussion identifies the ≥10-minute activity-bout criterion as WHO-recommended. This supports fewer than 30% meeting that criterion in the study sample, but not the claim about the adult population generally or participation in exercise training specifically. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMany adults do not meet dietary or activity guidelines.
“However, many adults do not meet dietary [5–7] or activity [8–10] guidelines.”
From Barriers and facilitators to diet, physical activity and lifestyle behavior intervention adherence: a qualitative systematic review of the literature (2023) · cites this paper as [9]
It is likely that only those who are already physically fit and motivated for general training will attend structured exercise classes that could include specific PFMT.
“it is likely that only those who are already physically fit and motivated for general training will attend structured exercise classes which could include specific PFMT [95–97].”
From International urogynecology consultation chapter 3 committee 2; conservative treatment of patient with pelvic organ prolapse: Pelvic floor muscle training (2022) · cites this paper as [96]
The Results report participants’ activity levels, and the Discussion > Strengths and Limitations discusses possible selection bias in who agreed to join the surveillance studies. Neither passage addresses whether already-fit, motivated people are more likely to attend structured exercise classes or classes that include PFMT. Searches for exercise-class attendance, motivation and PFMT found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 39 · Cited by 182
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [2]World Health Organization Global recommendations on physical activity for health 2010 Geneva World Health Organization 26180873
- [14]Craig R, Mindell J, Hirani V. Health survey for England 2008, vol. 1: physical activity and fitness. London: The Information Centre; 2009.
- [15]Craig R, Mindell J, Hirani V. Health survey for England 2008, vol. 2: methods and documentation. London: The Information Centre; 2009.
- Authors
- Loyen, A., Clarke-Cornwell, A. M., Anderssen, S. A., Hagströmer, M., Sardinha, L. B., Sundquist, K., Ekelund, U., Steene-Johannessen, J., Baptista, F., Hansen, B. H., Wijndaele, K., Brage, S., Lakerveld, J., Brug, J., & van der Ploeg, H. P.
- Affiliations
- Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
- University of Salford (GB)
- Norwegian School of Sport Sciences (NO)
- University of Lisbon (PT)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Loyen, Anne
- ORCID
- Venue
- Sports Medicine
- Published
- 2016-12-10
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1421-1435
- ISSN
- 0112-1642 (ISSN-L)
- 1179-2035
- PMC
- PMC5488150
- OpenAlex
- W2559926881
- Cited by
- 182
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 7
- FWCI
- 10.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Sports Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
- University of Salford Institutional Repository (University of Salford) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Apollo (cc-by)
- Funders
- ZonMw (200.600.001)
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL116381)
- British Heart Foundation (FS/12/58/29709)
- Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12015/3)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
- Keywords
- sedentary time, physical inactivity, physical activity surveillance, cross-national comparison, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, obesity, age differences, educational attainment, sex differences, European adults
- MeSH terms
- Age Factors, Aging, Cross-Sectional Studies, England, Europe, Female, Humans, Male, Motor Activity, Norway, Obesity, Population Surveillance, Portugal, Sweden, Health Behavior, Exercise, Multivariate Analysis, Logistic Models, Actigraphy, Sedentary Behavior, Accelerometry
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review