Cited by 323Physical Activity and HealthContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsErgonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders

Methods for objective measure, quantification and analysis of sedentary behaviour and inactivity

Chastin, S.F.M., Granat, M.H.·2010·Gait & Posture

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop and test a generic technique to robustly quantify the pattern of sedentary behaviour from objective records. The technique was applied to four groups of subjects: a healthy group with an active occupation (N=54), a healthy group with a sedentary occupation (N=53), a group of subjects with chronic low back pain (N=5) and a group of subjects with chronic fatigue syndrome (N=14). This study presents the first evidence that bouts of sedentary activity are power law distributed. Results showed that there was no significant difference in total sedentary time between the groups, however, the patterns of accumulation of sedentary time were significantly different for the groups. Sedentary groups accumulated their total sedentary time from a small number of longer sedentary bouts. Active groups tended to break their sedentary time into a greater number of shorter bouts. This suggests that the power law exponent alpha and the GINI index G, used to describe the pattern of accumulation of sedentary time, could be used to evaluate and quantify sedentary behaviour.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2009.09.002

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The accelerometer data were classified every minute of the day as MVPA, SB or LIPA depending on a threshold; this method is less accurate than postural allocation at distinguishing between SB and LIPA, so these two components might not be entirely accurate and different thresholds might lead to different results.

    “The accelerometer data were classified every minute of the day as MVPA, SB or LIPA depending on a threshold. This method is less accurate than postural allocation at distinguishing between SB and LIPA [57], therefore it is possible that these two components of the composition might not be entirely accurate and that different thresholds might lead to different results.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chastin, S. F. M., & Granat, M. H.
Affiliations
Glasgow Caledonian University (GB)
Corresponding author
Chastin, S.F.M.
Venue
Gait & Posture
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-01
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
82-86
ISSN
0966-6362 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2031292431
Cited by
323
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 14
FWCI
6.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Gait & Posture (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline (Glasgow Caledonian University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Ergonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
Keywords
sedentary behavior, physical inactivity, sedentary bouts, power-law distribution, Gini coefficient, chronic low back pain, chronic fatigue syndrome
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Monitoring, Physiologic, Occupations, Posture, Fatigue Syndrome, Chronic, Low Back Pain, Sedentary Behavior

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