Background:In light of evidence linking sedentary behaviors to health outcomes, there have been calls for the measurement of sedentary behavior in surveillance studies. This study examined the convergent validity of 2 self-report measures of sitting time and accelerometer-determined sedentary time (minutes/day of <100 counts/minute).Methods:44 adults wore an ActiGraph accelerometer for 7 days, during which they also recorded daily sitting time in a diary, in response to a single-item question. After 7 days, participants completed a new domain-specific questionnaire to assess usual weekday and weekend-day sitting time. Total sitting times recorded from the self-report measures were compared with accelerometer-determined sedentary time.Results:Total sitting time calculated from the domain-specific questionnaire did not differ significantly from accelerometer-determined sedentary time on weekdays (mean difference [±SE] = –14 ± 28 mins/day) and weekend days (–4 ± 45 mins/day, both P > .05). Sitting time was significantly underestimated using the single-item specific-day question on weekdays (–173 ± 18 mins/day) and weekend days (–219 ± 23 mins/day, both P < .001).Conclusions:When assessed via self-report, the estimation of total sitting time is improved by summing sitting times reported across different domains. The continued improvement of self-report measures of sitting time will be important if we are to further our understanding of the links between sedentary behavior and health.

Self-help CBT-I offers a practical first-line response to individual reporting insomnia symptoms associated with chronic disease in primary care settings. In these individuals, symptoms of daytime fatigue may be more closely associated with disease processes than with sleep quality.

No abstract

No abstract

Despite the emphasis placed on occupational impairment as a consequence of most sleep disorders, there is currently no standardized measure for quantifying the occupational impact of sleep quality at the individual level. Using existing scales, a comprehensive literature review, and focus groups to generate items, as well as psychometric analyses to reduce items, these analyses describe the development of a scale to assess workplace performance in relation to sleep quality. In a survey of 222 employees aged 20 to 64 years, the resulting 19-item instrument (the Loughborough Occupational Impact of Sleep Scale [LOISS]) showed satisfactory levels of reliability, effective discrimination between "good" and "poor" sleepers, and an interpretable 2-factor structure. LOISS provides a practical tool for population screening and clinical assessment.