Correlates of sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to systematically review evidence to identify intrapersonal, social environmental, physical environmental and policy correlates of sedentary behaviour (SB) among adults. METHODS: Six databases were searched to identify studies that reported on intrapersonal, social, physical environmental and/or policy correlates of SB across domains (i.e. occupational, leisure and transportation) in adults (mean ≥ 18 years old). Subgroup differences (sex, age, disease status, publication status and date, weekdays vs. weekend) were examined. Risk of bias was assessed, and a qualitative synthesis completed. PROSPERO: CRD42014009814 RESULTS: Searching identified 22,779 articles; 257 were used in the analysis. Most studies used self-reported SB and were cross-sectional. The most studied domain of SB and correlate was leisure and intrapersonal, respectively. Consistent evidence found positive relationships between full-time employment and higher transportation and lower leisure SB; higher income/socioeconomic status and greater transportation and occupation SB; living in more urban areas and greater sitting time and total SB; ownership of televisions and greater leisure SB; and, active workstations and lower occupational SB. CONCLUSIONS: The review identifies the need for longitudinal studies, as well as further research on factors in the physical, social and policy environments. The review also recognizes the need to standardize methodology for collecting, defining and reporting SB and correlates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".