The prominence of sedentary behavior research in health science has grown rapidly. With this growth there is increasing urgency for clear, common and accepted terminology and definitions. Such standardization is difficult to achieve, especially across multi-disciplinary researchers, practitioners, and industries. The Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) undertook a Terminology Consensus Project to address this need. First, a literature review was completed to identify key terms in sedentary behavior research. These key terms were then reviewed and modified by a Steering Committee formed by SBRN. Next, SBRN members were invited to contribute to this project and interested participants reviewed and provided feedback on the proposed list of terms and draft definitions through an online survey. Finally, a conceptual model and consensus definitions (including caveats and examples for all age groups and functional abilities) were finalized based on the feedback received from the 87 SBRN member participants who responded to the original invitation and survey. Consensus definitions for the terms physical inactivity, stationary behavior, sedentary behavior, standing, screen time, non-screen-based sedentary time, sitting, reclining, lying, sedentary behavior pattern, as well as how the terms bouts, breaks, and interruptions should be used in this context are provided. It is hoped that the definitions resulting from this comprehensive, transparent, and broad-based participatory process will result in standardized terminology that is widely supported and adopted, thereby advancing future research, interventions, policies, and practices related to sedentary behaviors.

The associations between time spent in sleep, sedentary behaviors (SB) and physical activity with health are usually studied without taking into account that time is finite during the day, so time spent in each of these behaviors are codependent. Therefore, little is known about the combined effect of time spent in sleep, SB and physical activity, that together constitute a composite whole, on obesity and cardio-metabolic health markers. Cross-sectional analysis of NHANES 2005–6 cycle on N = 1937 adults, was undertaken using a compositional analysis paradigm, which accounts for this intrinsic codependence. Time spent in SB, light intensity (LIPA) and moderate to vigorous activity (MVPA) was determined from accelerometry and combined with self-reported sleep time to obtain the 24 hour time budget composition. The distribution of time spent in sleep, SB, LIPA and MVPA is significantly associated with BMI, waist circumference, triglycerides, plasma glucose, plasma insulin (all p<0.001), and systolic (p<0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (p<0.003), but not HDL or LDL. Within the composition, the strongest positive effect is found for the proportion of time spent in MVPA. Strikingly, the effects of MVPA replacing another behavior and of MVPA being displaced by another behavior are asymmetric. For example, re-allocating 10 minutes of SB to MVPA was associated with a lower waist circumference by 0.001% but if 10 minutes of MVPA is displaced by SB this was associated with a 0.84% higher waist circumference. The proportion of time spent in LIPA and SB were detrimentally associated with obesity and cardiovascular disease markers, but the association with SB was stronger. For diabetes risk markers, replacing SB with LIPA was associated with more favorable outcomes. Time spent in MVPA is an important target for intervention and preventing transfer of time from LIPA to SB might lessen the negative effects of physical inactivity.

Background: Society has to cope with a large burden of health issues. There is need to find solutions to prevent diseases and help individuals live healthier lifestyles. Individual needs and circumstances vary greatly and one size fit all solutions do not tend to work well. More tailored solutions centred on individuals’ needs and circumstances can be developed in collaboration with these individuals. This process, known as co-creation, has shown promise but it requires guiding principles to improve its effectiveness. The aim of this study was to identify a key set of principles and recommendations for co-creating public health interventions. Methods: These principles were collaboratively developed through analysing a set of case studies targeting different health behaviours (such as reducing sitting and improving strength and balance) in different groups of people (such as adolescent schoolgirls and older adults living in the community). Results: The key principles of co-creation are presented in four stages: Planning (what is the purpose of the co-creation; and who should be involved?); Conducting (what activities can be used during co-creation; and how to ensure buy-in and commitment?); Evaluating (how do we know the process and the outcome are valid and effective?) and Reporting (how to report the findings?). Three models are proposed to show how co-created solutions can be scaled up to a population level. Conclusions: These recommendations aim to help the co-creation of public health interventions by providing a framework and governance to guide the process. Background: Due to the chronic disease burden on society, there is a need for preventive public health interventions to stimulate society towards a healthier lifestyle. To deal with the complex variability between individual lifestyles and settings, collaborating with end-users to develop interventions tailored to their unique circumstances has been suggested as a potential way to improve effectiveness and adherence. Co-creation of public health interventions using participatory methodologies has shown promise but lacks a framework to make this process systematic. The aim of this paper was to identify and set key principles and recommendations for systematically applying participatory methodologies to co-create and evaluate public health interventions. Methods: These principles and recommendations were derived using an iterative reflection process, combining key learning from published literature in addition to critical reflection on three case studies conducted by research groups in three European institutions, all of whom have expertise in co-creating public health interventions using different participatory methodologies. Results: Key principles and recommendations for using participatory methodologies in public health intervention co-creation are presented for the stages of: Planning (framing the aim of the study and identifying the appropriate sampling strategy); Conducting (defining the procedure, in addition to manifesting ownership); Evaluating (the process and the effectiveness) and Reporting (providing guidelines to report the findings). Three scaling models are proposed to demonstrate how to scale locally developed interventions to a population level. Conclusions: These recommendations aim to facilitate public health intervention co-creation and evaluation utilising participatory methodologies by ensuring the process is systematic and reproducible.

Background/objectives: Sedentary behavior (SB), defined as sitting (nonexercising), reclining, and lying down (posture), or by low energy expenditure, is a public health risk independent to physical activity. The objective of this systematic literature review was to synthesize the available evidence on amount of SB reported by and measured in older adults.Data source: Studies published between 1981 and 2014 were identified from electronic databases and manual searching. Large-scale population studies/surveys reporting the amount of SB (objective/subjective) in older adults aged ≥ 60 years of age were included. Appraisal and synthesis was completed using MOOSE guidelines.Results: 349,698 adults aged ≥ 60 within 22 studies (10 countries and 1 EU-wide) were included. Objective measurement of SB shows that older adults spend an average of 9.4 hr a day sedentary, equating to 65–80% of their waking day. Self-report of SB is lower, with average weighted self-reports being 5.3 hr daily. Within specific domains of SB, older adults report 3.3 hr in leisure sitting time and 3.3 hr watching TV. There is an association with more time spent in SB as age advances and a trend for older men to spend more time in SB than women.Conclusion/implications: Time spent sedentary ranges from 5.3–9.4 hr per waking day in older adults. With recent studies suggesting a link between SB, health, and well-being, independent of physical activity, this is an area important for successful aging.Limitations: Different methodologies of measurement and different reporting methods of SB made synthesis difficult. Estimated SB time from self-report is half of that measured objectively; suggesting that most self-report surveys of SB will vastly underestimate the actual time spent in SB.

The purpose of this overview of systematic reviews was to determine the relationship between different types and patterns of sedentary behaviour and selected health outcomes in adults and older adults. Five electronic databases were last searched in May, 2019, with a 10-year search limit. Included reviews met the a priori population (community-dwelling adults aged 18 years and older), intervention/exposure/comparator (various types and/or patterns of sedentary behaviour), and outcomes criteria. Eighteen systematic reviews were included in the evidence synthesis. High levels of sedentary behaviour are unfavourably associated with cognitive function, depression, function and disability, physical activity levels, and physical health-related quality of life in adults. Reducing or breaking up sedentary behaviour may benefit body composition and markers of cardiometabolic risk. Total sedentary behaviour and TV viewing were most consistently associated with unfavourable health outcomes, while computer and Internet use may be favourably associated with cognitive function for older adults. The quality of evidence within individual reviews (as assessed by review authors) varied from low to high, while the certainty of evidence was low to very low. These findings have important public health implications, suggesting that adults should avoid high levels of sedentary behaviour and break-up periods of prolonged sitting. (PROSPERO registration nos.: CRD42019123121 and CRD42019127157.) Novelty High levels of sedentary behaviour are unfavourably associated with important health outcomes in adults. Reducing or breaking up sedentary behaviour may benefit body composition and markers of cardiometabolic risk. Computer and Internet use may be favourably associated with cognitive function in older adults.

Sedentary behavior is a cluster of behaviors adopted in a sitting or lying posture where little energy is being expended. Sedentary behavior is a risk factor for health independent to inactivity. Currently, there are no published systematic reviews on the prevalence of sedentary behavior objectively measured in, or subjectively reported by, older adults. The aim of this systematic review was to collect and analyze published literature relating to reported prevalence of sedentary behavior, written in English, on human adults, where subjects aged 60 years and over were represented in the study. 23 reports covered data from 18 surveys sourced from seven countries. It was noted that sedentary behavior is defined in different ways by each survey. The majority of surveys included used self-report as a measurement of sedentary behavior. Objective measurements were also captured with the use of body worn accelerometers. Whether measurements are subjective or objective, the majority of older adults are sedentary. Almost 60% of older adult’s reported sitting for more than 4 h per day, 65% sit in front of a screen for more than 3 h daily and over 55% report watching more than 2 h of TV. However, when measured objectively in a small survey, it was found that 67% of the older population were sedentary for more than 8.5 h daily.