Physical Activity, Sedentary Behaviour, and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors in Canadians Living With and Without Cardiovascular Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to describe and compare the proportion of adult Canadians living with and without cardiovascular disease (CVD) and meeting the physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) recommendations of the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines using accelerometer and self-reported measures. METHODS: Using adult (18-79 years of age) accelerometer data (Actical, worn during waking hours for 7 consecutive days) as well as chronic condition, sociodemographic, recreational screen time, and PA questions from 3 combined cycles of the Canadian Health Measures Survey, we compared the PA, SB, and CVD risk factors of adults living with and without CVD. RESULTS: A total of 7035 Canadian adults who reported living with (n = 363) and without (n = 6672) CVD were included. Few adults living with CVD were meeting the PA (29%) and SB (15%) recommendations. CVD status was not significantly associated with the likelihood of meeting the PA or screen time recommendations, but adults living with CVD had a lower likelihood of meeting the sedentary time recommendation when compared with adults without CVD (adjusted odds ratio = 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.82). Adults, primarily men, living with rather than without CVD engaged in less light- and moderate-intensity PA. CONCLUSIONS: The PA and SB of Canadian adults living with and without CVD are significantly different. Adults living with CVD had a lower likelihood of meeting the sedentary time recommendation, and adults living with CVD, primarily men, engaged in less light- and moderate-intensity PA. The identification of these movement behaviour targets may assist in allocating resources to sedentary individuals with the greatest need of PA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".