4.3 Article

Evening typology and morning tiredness associates with low leisure time physical activity and high sitting

期刊

CHRONOBIOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
卷 32, 期 8, 页码 1090-1100

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/07420528.2015.1063061

关键词

Chronotype; latent class analysis; morning tiredness; physical activity; sedentary behavior; sitting

资金

  1. Ministry of Culture and Education
  2. Juho Vainio foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Circadian typology is a latent trait that is usually assessed with scoring on a series of questions thought to represent the construct. But, in the classification, most people fall into the intermediate type, i. e. neither a definite morning nor an evening type, but still showing stronger preference towards either end of the continuum. Our aim was to operationalize chronotype using latent class analysis (LCA) for a 6-item scale derived from the original Horne-Ostberg Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire to compare and understand characteristics of chronotype in a populationbased sample of adults in Finland. A total of 4904 men and women aged 25-74 years were included. We also analyzed the associations of chronotypes with physical activity (PA) and sitting. We found five latent chronotype groups including rested more-evening type'' (28%), rested more-morning type'' (24%), morning type'' (23%), tired moreevening type'' (17%) and evening type'' (8%) groups. Operationalization of chronotype by LCA suggests that morning alertness is an important feature differentiating chronotypes. Further, the evening type'' and the tired, more-evening type'' had higher odds for none to very low as well as low PA, as compared to morning type''. In addition, evening type'' was associated with higher odds for more time spent sitting, as compared to morning type''. Our findings indicate that it is important to assess sleep schedules and morning tiredness, which then could be targeted as a potential mediating factor for health behaviors, in particular, PA and health status.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据