MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884258882 · doi:10.1186/s12966-018-0691-3

Health outcomes associated with reallocations of time between sleep, sedentary behaviour, and physical activity: a systematic scoping review of isotemporal substitution studies

2018· article· en· W2884258882 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jozo Grgić, Dorothea Dumuid, Enrique Garcíá Bengoechea, Nipun Shrestha, Adrian Bauman, Tim Olds, Željko Pedišić

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerontologyMedicineScreen timePhysical activityEpidemiologyClinical nutritionDemographyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: During a 24-h day, each given period is spent in either sedentary behaviour, sleeping, light physical activity (LPA), or moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). In epidemiological research most studies have traditionally analysed the associations of these behaviours in isolation from each other; that is, without taking into account the displacement of time spent in the remaining behaviours. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in exploring how all the behaviours across the energy expenditure spectrum influence health outcomes. A statistical model used to investigate these associations is termed an isotemporal substitution model (ISM). Considering the increasing number of ISM-based studies conducted in all age groups, the present paper aimed to: (i) review and summarise findings from studies that employed ISM in sleep, sedentary behaviour, and physical activity research; (ii) appraise the methodological quality of the studies; and (iii) suggest future research directions in this area. METHODS: A systematic search of ten databases was performed. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. RESULTS: Fifty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, all being of moderate or high methodological quality. Associations were reported for exchanged time varying from one minute to 120 min/day across the studies, with 30 min/day being the most common amount of time reallocated. In total, three different ISM methodologies were used. The most commonly studied health outcomes in relation to isotemporal substitutions were mortality, general health, mental health, adiposity, fitness, and cardiometabolic biomarkers. It seems that reallocations of sedentary time to LPA or MVPA are associated with significant reduction in mortality risk. Current evidence appears to consistently suggest that reductions in mortality risk are greater when time spent sedentary is replaced with higher intensities of physical activity. For adiposity, it seems that reallocating sedentary time to physical activity may be associated with reduced body mass index, body fat percentage, and waist circumference in all age groups, with the magnitude of associations being greater for higher intensities of physical activity. While there is a relatively large body of evidence reporting beneficial associations between the reallocation of time from sedentary behaviour to LPA or MVPA and cardiometabolic biomarkers among adults, there is a lack of studies among children, adolescents, and older adults. Although some studies investigated general health, mental health, and fitness outcomes, further investigation of these topics is warranted. In general, it seems that the strongest association with health outcomes is observed when time is reallocated from sedentary behaviour to MVPA. Most studies did not account for sleep time, which is a major limitation of the current evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence indicates that time reallocation between sleep, sedentary behaviour, LPA, and MVPA may be associated with a number of health outcomes. Future studies should employ longitudinal designs, take into account all movement behaviours, and examine a wider range of health, psychological, social, economic, and environmental outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.012
Bibliometrics0.0230.023
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations372
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical ActivitySame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207