Cited by 239Physical Activity and HealthCardiovascular and exercise physiologyContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems

Objectively Measured Daily Steps and Subsequent Long Term All-Cause Mortality: The Tasped Prospective Cohort Study

Open access
Dwyer, Terence, Pezic, Angela, Sun, Cong, Cochrane, Jenny, Venn, Alison, Srikanth, Velandai, Jones, Graeme, Shook, Robin +4 more·2015·PLOS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Self-reported physical activity has been inversely associated with mortality but the effect of objectively measured step activity on mortality has never been evaluated. The objective is to determine the prospective association of daily step activity on mortality among free-living adults. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Cohort study of free-living adults residing in Tasmania, Australia between 2000 and 2005 who participated in one of three cohort studies (n = 2 576 total participants). Daily step activity by pedometer at baseline at a mean of 58.8 years of age, and for a subset, repeated monitoring was available 3.7 (SD 1.3) years later (n = 1 679). All-cause mortality (n = 219 deaths) was ascertained by record-linkage to the Australian National Death Index; 90% of participants were followed-up over ten years, until June 2011. Higher daily step count at baseline was linearly associated with lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio AHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90 to 0.98 per 1 000 steps; P = 0.004). Risk was altered little by removing deaths occurring in the first two years. Increasing baseline daily steps from sedentary to 10 000 steps a day was associated with a 46% (95% CI, 18% to 65%; P = 0.004) lower risk of mortality in the decade of follow-up. In addition, those who increased their daily steps over the monitoring period had a substantial reduction in mortality risk, after adjusting for baseline daily step count (AHR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.72; P = 0.002), or other factors (AHR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.21-0.70; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Higher daily step count was linearly associated with subsequent long term mortality among free living adults. These data are the first to quantify mortality reductions using an objective measure of physical activity in a free living population. They strongly underscore the importance of physical inactivity as a major public health problem.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0141274

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dwyer, T., Pezic, A., Sun, C., Cochrane, J., Venn, A., Srikanth, V., Jones, G., Shook, R., Sui, X., Ortaglia, A., Blair, S., & Ponsonby, A.-L.
Affiliations
  • University of Tasmania (AU)
  • Royal Children's Hospital (AU)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Iowa State University (US)
  • University of South Carolina (US)
Corresponding author
Ponsonby, Anne-Louise
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2015-11-04
Volume
10
Issue
11
Pages
e0141274
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2105454468
Cited by
239
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
15.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Defense
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • Pfizer
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Sanofi
  • Coca-Cola Foundation
  • University of Miami
  • Arthritis Foundation of Australia
  • University of South Carolina
  • Diabetes Australia
  • Kidney Health Australia
  • University of Tasmania
  • Novo Nordisk
  • State Government of Victoria
  • Physiotherapy Research Foundation
  • Servier
  • Tasmanian Community Fund
  • Tasmanian Department of Health
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
  • Cilag
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Keywords
daily step count, physical activity, all-cause mortality, pedometer-measured activity, physical inactivity, sedentary behavior, 10,000 steps per day, free-living adults
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Mortality, Motor Activity, Prospective Studies, Tasmania, Exercise, Walking, Actigraphy, Self Report

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