A systematic review of determinants of sedentary behaviour in youth: a DEDIPAC-study

Stierlin, Annabel S.; De Lepeleere, Sara; Cardon, Greet; Dargent-Molina, Patricia; Hoffmann, Belinda; Murphy, Marie H.; Kennedy, Aileen; O’Donoghue, Grainne; Chastin, Sebastien FM; De Craemer, Marieke

doi:10.1186/s12966-015-0291-4

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

Table 2 Descriptive characteristics of the included articles

From: A systematic review of determinants of sedentary behaviour in youth: a DEDIPAC-study

Age group	Author (year)	Country	Design	Participants			Sedentary Behaviour Measure		Quality Score (%)
Age group	Author (year)	Country	Design	Total	Proportion (male/female)	Mean Age in years	General	Specific	Quality Score (%)
Toddlers and preschoolers	Taylor et al. 2009 [62]	New Zealand	Longitudinal cohort	244	56 % M 44 % F	5 year	Parent-report questionnaire	Sedentary time and screen time	77.3
Children	Telford et al. 2013 [53]	Australia	Longitudinal cohort	853	51 % M 49 % F	12 year	Accelerometer	Sedentary time	95.5
	Atkin et al. 2013b [38]	UK	Longitudinal cohort	854	42 % M 58 % F	11.2 year		Sedentary time	90.9
	Mantjes et al. 2012 [33]	UK	Longitudinal cohort	839	42 % M 58 % F	11.2 year		Sedentary time	90.9
	D’Haese et al. 2013 [36]	Belgium	Cross-over study	187	52 % M 48 % F	10.4 year		Sedentary time	75.0
	Cui et al. 2011 [60]	China	Nested cohort study	1997: 2469	1997:		Self-report questionnaire	TV/video/DVD viewing, video games playing, computer time, homework, reading, writing and drawing	77.3
				2000: 1838	52 % M 48 % F 2000:	11.7 year
				2004: 1382	54 % M 46 % F	12.0 year
				2004: 1382	2004:	12.0 year
				2006: 1128	53 % M 47 % F	12.0 year
					2006:	12.0 year
					53 % M 47 % F	11.7 year
	Ziviani et al. 2008 [59]	Australia	Nested cohort study	59	44 % M 56 % F	8.9 year	Parent-report questionnaire	Screen time, homework, reading, musical/cultural activity, craft activity, indoor play, daily care activity	54.5
	Treuth et al. 2004 [40]	USA	Longitudinal cohort	91	100 % F	10 year		TV viewing	63.6
	Davison et al. 2005 [41]	USA	Longitudinal cohort	173	100 % F	11 year		TV viewing	77.3
	Barkley et al. 2012 [45]	USA	Cross-over study	19	58 % M 42 % F	11.3 year (M)	Observation	Sedentary time	67.9
	Barkley et al. 2012 [45]	USA	Cross-over study	19	58 % M 42 % F	11.5 year (F)	Observation	Sedentary time	67.9
	Fuller-Tyszkiewicz et al. 2012 [52]	Australia	Longitudinal cohort	9064	51 % M 49 % F	Cohort K: 6.3 year Cohort B: 10.3 year	Interview	TV viewing	63.6
	Wickel et al. 2013 [34]	Netherlands	Longitudinal cohort	886	50 % M 50 % F	11 year	Interview	Sedentary time, screen time, and non-screen time	72.7
	Janz et al. 2005 [15]	USA	Longitudinal cohort	378	47 % M 53 % F	8.6 year	Accelerometer + Parent-report questionnaire	Sedentary time + TV viewing and video games playing	77.3
	Veitch et al. 2011 [51]	Australia	Longitudinal cohort	171	54 % M 46 % F	11.1 year		Sedentary time + screen time, computer/e-games time	81.8
	Hjorth et al. 2013 [27]	Denmark	Cross-over study	785	52 % M 48 % F	10.5 year (M) 10.4 year (F)		Sedentary time + screen time	95.5
	Straker et al. 2013 [55]	Australia	Cross-over study	56	48 % M 52 % F	11.8 year	Accelerometer + Diary	Sedentary time + sedentary leisure time (total, screen, non-screen) and TV/non-game computer time	84.6
	Atlantis et al. 2008 [57]	Australia	RCT^a	30	77 % M 23 % F	10–12 year	Interview + Observation	Sedentary time	69.2
Adolescents	Evenson et al. 2010 [44]	USA	RCT	847	100 % F	13.9 year	Accelerometer	Sedentary time	86.4
	Ridgers et al. 2013 [54]	Australia	Longitudinal cohort	111	51 % M 49 % F	17.6 year		Sedentary time	86.4
	Ortega et al. 2013 [35]	Estonia, Sweden	Combined analysis of two mixed-longitudinal cohort studies	Swedish cohort: 753	Swedish cohort: 45 % M 55 % F	Swedish young cohort: 15.5 year (Other cohorts are >18 year at follow up)		Sedentary time	90.9
	Ortega et al. 2013 [35]	Estonia, Sweden	Combined analysis of two mixed-longitudinal cohort studies	Estonian cohort: 813	Estonian cohort: 46 % M 54 % F			Sedentary time	90.9
	Bauer et al. 2008 [43]	USA	Longitudinal cohort	2516	45 % M 55 % F	Cohort 1: 17.2 year (cohort 2: > 18 year)	Self-report questionnaire	TV/video viewing	81.8
	Brodersen et al. 2007 [32]	UK	Longitudinal cohort	5287	49 % M 51 % F	15–16 year		TV viewing and video games playing	81.8
	Delmas et al. 2007 [30]	France	RCT	379	51 % M 49 % F	15.7 year		TV/video viewing and reading time	86.4
	Hardy et al. 2007 [58]	Australia	Longitudinal cohort	163	100 % F	14.9 year		Sedentary time and sedentary behaviours	86.4
	Nelson et al. 2006 [42]	USA	Longitudinal cohort	2516	cohort 1: 45 % M 55%F	15–18 year (cohort 1)		TV/video viewing and leisure-time computer use	86.4
	Nelson et al. 2006 [42]	USA	Longitudinal cohort	2516	cohort 2: 45 % M 55 % F	15–18 year (cohort 1)		TV/video viewing and leisure-time computer use	86.4
	Van Jaarsveld et al. 2007 [31]	UK	Longitudinal cohort	5229	57 % M 43 % F	15–16 year		TV/video viewing, video games playing on computer	90.9
	Schmitz et al. 2002 [47]	USA	RCT	3798	52 % M 48 % F	13.3 year		Sedentary leisure habits	95.5
	Datar et al. 2012 [46]	USA	Longitudinal cohort	18,900	51 % M 49 % F	14.2 year	Parent-report questionnaire	TV viewing	81.8
	Saelens et al. 2002 [48]	USA	Longitudinal cohort	169	52 % M 48 % F	12.1 year	Interview	TV time	72.7
	Raudsepp et al. 2008 [39]	Estonia	Longitudinal cohort	345	51 % M 49 % F	14 year	3-day recall	Sedentary time	68.2
	Atkin et al. 2013a [37]	UK	Longitudinal cohort	sedentary time: 319 screen time: 373	T0 (accel.): 45 % M 55 % F	14.3 year	Accelerometer + Self-report questionnaire	Sedentary time + Screen-time	77.3
					T4 (accel.): 48 % M 52 % F
					T0 (quest.): 44 % M 56 % F
					T4 (quest.): 45 % M 55 % F
	Hume et al. 2011 [50]	Australia	Longitudinal cohort	155	40 % M 60 % F	16.4 year (M)		Sedentary time + TV/video/DVD viewing	81.8
	Hume et al. 2011 [50]	Australia	Longitudinal cohort	155	40 % M 60 % F	16.2 year (F)		Sedentary time + TV/video/DVD viewing	81.8
	Trang et al. 2013 [61]	Vietnam	Longitudinal cohort	759	48 % M 52 % F	15.8 year		Sedentary time + Screen time	90.9
Children + Adolescents	Arundell et al. 2013 [56]	Australia	Longitudinal cohort	2053	Younger: 52 % M 48 % F	10–11 year	Accelerometer	Sedentary time	90.9
	Arundell et al. 2013 [56]	Australia	Longitudinal cohort	2053	Older: 45 % M 55 % F	15–17 year		Sedentary time	90.9
	Ridgway et al. 2011 [28]	Denmark	Secondary data analyses on four cohort studies	4170	EYHS: 47 % M 53 % F	12.0 year		Sedentary time	95.5
		Norway			EYHS: 47 % M 53 % F	12.0 year
		Portugal			Roots study: 44 % M 56 % F	14.5 year
		Estonia
		UK
		UK			Speedy study: 44 % M 56 % F	10.2 year
		Brazil			Speedy study: 44 % M 56 % F	10.2 year
		Brazil			Pelotas: 52 % M 48 % F	13.3 year
	Francis et al. 2011 [49]	USA	Longitudinal cohort	434	47 % M 53 % F	13 years	Parent-report questionnaire	TV time, video game time	90.9
	Murdey et al. 2005 [29]	UK	Longitudinal cohort	83	52 % M 48 % F	Cohort 1: 12.1 year	Diaries	Sedentary time	59.1
						Cohort 2: 14.2 year
						Cohort 3: 16.0 year

^aData used of the four RCTs that were included:
-Delmas et al. [31]: Only the data from the control group were reported in the manuscript and therefore only those data were used in the review
-Evenson et al. [45]: In each analysis model, the treatment condition (intervention vs. control) was included as a covariate. Therefore, both intervention and control group data could be used
-Atlantis et al. [58]: no significant effects or trends were seen for any of the dependent variables. Therefore, data of both intervention and control groups were used
-Schmitz et al. [48]: The self-reported PA and SLH were measured in spring whereas demographic and psychosocial variables were measured the previous fall (baseline data). Since the 16 schools of this study were randomized to intervention or comparison (delayed intervention) conditions after all baseline measures were taken, both intervention and control group data could be used for the current review

Back to article page

ISSN: 1479-5868

Contact us

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: info@biomedcentral.com