↓ Skip to main content

Associations of mutually exclusive categories of physical activity and sedentary time with markers of cardiometabolic health in English adults: a cross-sectional analysis of the Health Survey for…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
16 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
70 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
207 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Associations of mutually exclusive categories of physical activity and sedentary time with markers of cardiometabolic health in English adults: a cross-sectional analysis of the Health Survey for England
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-2694-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kishan Bakrania, Charlotte L. Edwardson, Danielle H. Bodicoat, Dale W. Esliger, Jason M. R. Gill, Aadil Kazi, Latha Velayudhan, Alan J. Sinclair, Naveed Sattar, Stuart J. H. Biddle, Kamlesh Khunti, Melanie Davies, Thomas Yates

Abstract

Both physical activity and sedentary behaviour have been individually associated with health, however, the extent to which the combination of these behaviours influence health is less well-known. The aim of this study was to examine the associations of four mutually exclusive categories of objectively measured physical activity and sedentary time on markers of cardiometabolic health in a nationally representative sample of English adults. Using the 2008 Health Survey for England dataset, 2131 participants aged ≥18 years, who provided valid accelerometry data, were included for analysis and grouped into one of four behavioural categories: (1) 'Busy Bees': physically active & low sedentary, (2) 'Sedentary Exercisers': physically active & high sedentary, (3) 'Light Movers': physically inactive & low sedentary, and (4) 'Couch Potatoes': physically inactive & high sedentary. 'Physically active' was defined as accumulating at least 150 min of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per week. 'Low sedentary' was defined as residing in the lowest quartile of the ratio between the average sedentary time and the average light-intensity physical activity time. Weighted multiple linear regression models, adjusting for measured confounders, investigated the differences in markers of health across the derived behavioural categories. The associations between continuous measures of physical activity and sedentary levels with markers of health were also explored, as well as a number of sensitivity analyses. In comparison to 'Couch Potatoes', 'Busy Bees' [body mass index: -1.67 kg/m(2) (p < 0.001); waist circumference: -1.17 cm (p = 0.007); glycated haemoglobin: -0.12 % (p = 0.003); HDL-cholesterol: 0.09 mmol/L (p = 0.001)], 'Sedentary Exercisers' [body mass index: -1.64 kg/m(2) (p < 0.001); glycated haemoglobin: -0.11 % (p = 0.009); HDL-cholesterol: 0.07 mmol/L (p < 0.001)] and 'Light Movers' [HDL-cholesterol: 0.11 mmol/L (p = 0.004)] had more favourable health markers. The continuous analyses showed consistency with the categorical analyses and the sensitivity analyses indicated robustness and stability. In this national sample of English adults, being physically active was associated with a better health profile, even in those with concomitant high sedentary time. Low sedentary time independent of physical activity had a positive association with HDL-cholesterol.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 70 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 203 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 17%
Researcher 22 11%
Other 21 10%
Student > Bachelor 17 8%
Other 37 18%
Unknown 28 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 50 24%
Sports and Recreations 49 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 35 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 16 8%
Unknown 43 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 180. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2019.
All research outputs
#140,131
of 19,391,966 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#131
of 12,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,219
of 389,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#10
of 1,129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,391,966 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,754 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 389,818 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.