3.9 Article

Device-Assessed Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviors in Canadians with Chronic Disease(s): Findings from the Canadian Health Measures Survey

期刊

SPORTS
卷 7, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/sports7050113

关键词

Chronic disease; physical activity; sedentary behavior; multimorbidity; health promotion

资金

  1. Universite du Quebec a Montreal
  2. Fonds de recherche du Quebec-Sante
  3. Chercheur-Boursier Junior 1 FRQS scholarship
  4. Quebec Inter-university Center for Social Statictics
  5. Institut Universitaire de Sante Mentale de Montreal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Physical activity and sedentary behaviors (SB) are major determinants of quality of life in adults with one or more chronic disease(s). The aim of this study is to compare objectively measured physical activity and SB in a representative sample of Canadian adults with and without chronic disease(s). The Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) (2007-2013) was used in this study. Daily time spent in physical activities and sedentary behaviors were assessed by an accelerometer in Canadians aged 35-79 years. Data are characterized as daily mean time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), light physical activity (LPA), steps accumulated per day and SB. Chronic diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart diseases, cancer) were assessed via self-report diagnostic or laboratory data. Weighted multivariable analyses of covariance comparing physical activity and SB variables among adults without and with chronic disease(s) were conducted; 6270 participants were included. Analyses indicated that 23.9%, 4.9% and 0.5% had one, two, and three or more chronic diseases. Adults with two and more chronic diseases had significantly lower daily duration of MVPA and LPA, daily step counts, and higher daily duration of SB compared to adults without chronic diseases. Interventions targeting physical activity improvement and SB reduction might be beneficial for Canadian multimorbid adults.

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

3.9
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