Search

Amidst public health campaigns urging people to sit less as well as being more physically active, this paper investigates how older adults make sense of their sedentary behaviour. Using an accounts framework focusing on how people rationalise their sitting practices, we analysed data from 44 qualitative interviews with older adults. All interviewees had received information about sedentary behaviour and health, visual feedback on their own objectively measured sitting over a week and guidance on sitting less. Participants used accounts to position sitting as a moral practice, distinguishing between ‘good’ (active/‘busy’) and ‘bad’ (passive/‘not busy’) sitting. This allowed them to align themselves with acceptable (worthwhile) forms of sitting and distance themselves from other people whose sitting they viewed as less worthwhile. However, some participants also described needing to sit more as they got older. The findings suggest that some public health messaging may lead to stigmatisation around sitting. Future sedentary behaviour guidelines and public health campaigns should consider more relatable guidelines that consider the lived realities of ageing, and the individual and social factors that shape them. They should advocate finding a balance between sitting and moving that is appropriate for each person.

Objective: \ud To identify risk factors associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Nairobi, Kenya.\ud \ud Methods: \ud A case-control study comparing 70 (53% women) recently diagnosed T2D cases with age-, sex- and socioeconomic status-matched normoglycemic controls (1:1). Objectively measured data were obtained on anthropometrics, handgrip strength and physical activity (by accelerometer). Self-reported data were collected on demographic characteristics and lifestyle factors. Logistic regression models, adjusted for covariates, were used to analyse the data.\ud \ud Results: \ud Each standard deviation (SD) increase in height was associated with lower odds for T2D (adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=0.34 (95% confidence intervals [CIs] 0.17, 0.66), p=0.0031). Fat-free mass was inversely associated with T2D (AOR=0.42 (95% CI 0.24, 0.75, p=0.0032, per SD increase). Grip strength was associated with a lower risk of T2D (AOR=0.20 (95% CI 0.08, 0.45), p

Objective:\ud \ud In this study, we aimed to conduct an in‐depth psychometric investigation of the Relationships Scales Questionnaire (RSQ).\ud Method:\ud \ud About 717 UK‐based participants responded to an online questionnaire (F = 540, M = 177; age range 18–66 years, M = 25, SD = 8.46). We conducted (a) a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to test previously published factor models of the RSQ, (b) traditional (exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis) and contemporary (exploratory graph analysis) exploratory techniques, followed by (c) validity and reliability analyses.\ud Results:\ud \ud Although the RSQ was developed to assess four categories of adult attachment (typological approach – i.e., secure, preoccupied, dismissing, and fearful), our findings do not support the hypothesis that the RSQ delivers a psychometrically consistent measure of adult attachment styles.\ud Conclusion:\ud \ud The results of the present study suggest that a two‐dimensional approach (i.e., anxiety and avoidance) to assessing adult attachment is optimal.