Introduction: There is currently a lack of industry-wide gold standardization in accelerometer study
protocols, including within sleep-focused studies. This study seeks to address accuracy of
accelerometer data in detection of the beginnings and ends of sleep bouts in young adults with
polysomnography (PSG) corroboration. An existing algorithm used to differentiate valid/invalid wear
time and detect bouts of sleep has been modified with the goal of maximizing accuracy of sleep bout
detection. Methods: Three key decisions and thresholds of the algorithm have been modified with three
experimental values each being tested. The main experimental variable Sleepwindow controls the
amount of time before and after a determined bout of sleep that is searched for additional sedentary
time to incorporate and consider part of the same sleep bout. Results were compared to PSG and sleep
diary data for absolute agreement of sleep bout start time (START), end time (END) and time in bed
(TIB). Adjustments were made for outliers as well as sleep latency, snooze time, and the sum of both.
Results: Only adjustments made to a sleep window variable yielded altered results. Between a 5-, 15-,
and 30-minute window, a 15-minute window incurred the least error and most agreement to
comparisons for START, while a 5-minute window was best for END and TIB. Discussion: Contrary
to expectation, corrections for snooze, latency, and both did not substantially improve agreement to
PSG. Algorithm-derived estimates of START and END always fell after sleep diary and PSG both,
suggesting either participants’ sedentary behavior beginning and ends were at a delay from sleep and
wake times, or the algorithm estimates consistently later times than appropriate. The inclusion of a
sleep window variable yields substantial variety in results. A 15-minute window appears best at
determining START while a 5-minute window appears best for END and TIB. Further investigation on
the optimal window length per demographic and condition is required.

Background: To identify social ecological correlates of objectively measured workplace sedentary behavior.

Methods: Participants from 24 worksites - across academic, industrial, and government sectors - wore an activPAL-micro accelerometer for 7-days (Jan-Nov 2016). Work time was segmented using daily logs. Sedentary behavior outcomes included time spent sitting, standing, in light intensity physical activity (LPA, stepping cadence <100 steps/min), and in prolonged sitting bouts (>30 min). Outcomes were standardized to an 8 h work day. Two electronic surveys were completed to derive individual (job type and work engagement), cultural (lunch away from the desk, walking at lunch and face-to-face interaction), physical (personal printer and office type) and organizational (sector) factors. Mixed-model analyses with worksite-level clustering were performed to examine multi-level associations. Secondary analyses examined job type and sector as moderators of these associations. All models were adjusted for age, race/ethnicity and gender.

Results: Participants (N = 478; 72% female; age: 45.0 ± 11.3 years; 77.8% non-Hispanic white) wore the activPAL-micro for 90.2 ± 15.5% of the reported workday. Walking at lunch was positively associated with LPA (5.0 ± 0.5 min/8 h, P < 0.001). Regular face-to-face interaction was negatively associated with prolonged sitting (−11.3 ± 4.8 min/8 h, P < 0.05). Individuals in private offices sat more (20.1 ± 9.1 min/8 h, P < 0.05), stood less (−21.5 ± 8.8 min/8 h, P < 0.05), and engaged in more prolonged sitting (40.9 ± 11.2 min/8 h, P < 0.001) than those in public office space. These associations were further modified by job type and sector.

Conclusions: Work-specific individual, cultural, physical and organizational factors are associated with workplace sedentary behavior. Associations vary by job type and sector and should be considered in the design of workplace interventions to reduce sedentary behavior.

Background: Although current technological advancements have allowed for objective measurements of sedentary behavior via accelerometers, these devices do not provide the contextual information needed to identify targets for behavioral interventions and generate public health guidelines to reduce sedentary behavior. Thus, self-reports still remain an important method of measurement for physical activity and sedentary behaviors.

Objective: This study evaluated the reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of a smartphone app in assessing sitting, light-intensity physical activity (LPA), and moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA).
Methods: Adults (N=28; 49.0 years old, standard deviation [SD] 8.9; 85% men; 73% Caucasian; body mass index=35.0, SD 8.3 kg/m2) reported their sitting, LPA, and MVPA over an 11-week behavioral intervention. During three separate 7-day periods, participants wore the activPAL3c accelerometer/inclinometer as a criterion measure. Intraclass correlation (ICC; 95% CI) and bias estimates (mean difference [δ] and root of mean square error [RMSE]) were used to compare app-based reported behaviors to measured sitting time (lying/seated position), LPA (standing or stepping at <100 steps/minute), and MVPA (stepping at >100 steps/minute).

Results: Test-retest results suggested moderate agreement with the criterion for sedentary time, LPA, and MVPA (ICC=0.65 [0.43-0.82], 0.67 [0.44-0.83] and 0.69 [0.48-0.84], respectively). The agreement between the two measures was poor (ICC=0.05-0.40). The app underestimated sedentary time (δ=-45.9 [-67.6, -24.2] minutes/day, RMSE=201.6) and overestimated LPA and MVPA (δ=18.8 [-1.30 to 38.9] minutes/day, RMSE=183; and δ=29.3 [25.3 to 33.2] minutes/day, RMSE=71.6, respectively). The app underestimated change in time spent during LPA and MVPA but overestimated change in sedentary time. Both measures showed similar directions in changed scores on sedentary time and LPA.

Conclusions: Despite its inaccuracy, the app may be useful as a self-monitoring tool in the context of a behavioral intervention. Future research may help to clarify reasons for under- or over-reporting of behaviors.