Back to Search Start Over

Correction of bias in self-reported sitting time among office workers - a study based on compositional data analysis

Authors :
Svend Erik Mathiassen
Pieter Coenen
David Hallman
Allard J. van der Beek
Public and occupational health
APH - Societal Participation & Health
Source :
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 46(1), 32-42. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Coenen, P, Mathiassen, S, van der Beek, A J & Hallman, D M 2020, ' Correction of bias in self-reported sitting time among office workers-a study based on compositional data analysis ', Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 32-42 . https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3827, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, Vol 46, Iss 1, Pp 32-42 (2020)
Publication Year :
2020

Abstract

Objective Emerging evidence suggests that excessive sitting has negative health effects. However, this evidence largely relies on research using self-reported sitting time, which is known to be biased. To correct this bias, we aimed at developing a calibration model estimating "true" sitting from self-reported sitting. Methods Occupational sitting time was estimated by self-reports (the International Physical Activity Question-naire) and objective measurements (thigh-worn accelerometer) among 99 Swedish office workers at a governmental agency, at baseline and 3 and 12 months afterwards. Following compositional data analysis procedures, both sitting estimates were transformed into isometric log-ratios (ILR). This effectively addresses that times spent in various activities are inherently dependent and can be presented as values of only 0−100%. Linear regression was used to develop a simple calibration model estimating objectively measured "true" sitting ILR (dependent variable) from self-reported sitting ILR (independent variable). Additional self-reported variables were then added to construct a full calibration model. Performance of the models was assessed by root-mean-square (RMS) differences between estimated and objectively measured values. Models developed on baseline data were validated using the follow-up datasets. Results Uncalibrated self-reported sitting ILR showed an RMS error of 0.767. Simple and full calibration models (incorporating body mass index, office type, and gender) reduced this error to 0.422 (55%) and 0.398 (52%), respectively. In the validations, model performance decreased to 57%/62% (simple models) and 57%/62% (full models) for the two follow-up data sets, respectively. Conclusion Calibration adjusting for errors in self-reported sitting led to substantially more correct estimates of "true" sitting than uncalibrated self-reports. Validation indicated that model performance would change somewhat in new datasets and that full models perform no better than simple models, but calibration remained effective.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
03553140
Volume :
46
Issue :
1
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....e0779b2982d6d522292f4cf4b5de14da
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3827