ASU Scholarship Showcase

Background: Although current technological advancements have allowed for objective measurements of sedentary behavior via accelerometers, these devices do not provide the contextual information needed to identify targets for behavioral interventions and generate public health guidelines to reduce sedentary behavior. Thus, self-reports still remain an important method of measurement for physical activity and sedentary behaviors.

Objective: This study evaluated the reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of a smartphone app in assessing sitting, light-intensity physical activity (LPA), and moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA).
Methods: Adults (N=28; 49.0 years old, standard deviation [SD] 8.9; 85% men; 73% Caucasian; body mass index=35.0, SD 8.3 kg/m2) reported their sitting, LPA, and MVPA over an 11-week behavioral intervention. During three separate 7-day periods, participants wore the activPAL3c accelerometer/inclinometer as a criterion measure. Intraclass correlation (ICC; 95% CI) and bias estimates (mean difference [δ] and root of mean square error [RMSE]) were used to compare app-based reported behaviors to measured sitting time (lying/seated position), LPA (standing or stepping at <100 steps/minute), and MVPA (stepping at >100 steps/minute).

Results: Test-retest results suggested moderate agreement with the criterion for sedentary time, LPA, and MVPA (ICC=0.65 [0.43-0.82], 0.67 [0.44-0.83] and 0.69 [0.48-0.84], respectively). The agreement between the two measures was poor (ICC=0.05-0.40). The app underestimated sedentary time (δ=-45.9 [-67.6, -24.2] minutes/day, RMSE=201.6) and overestimated LPA and MVPA (δ=18.8 [-1.30 to 38.9] minutes/day, RMSE=183; and δ=29.3 [25.3 to 33.2] minutes/day, RMSE=71.6, respectively). The app underestimated change in time spent during LPA and MVPA but overestimated change in sedentary time. Both measures showed similar directions in changed scores on sedentary time and LPA.

Conclusions: Despite its inaccuracy, the app may be useful as a self-monitoring tool in the context of a behavioral intervention. Future research may help to clarify reasons for under- or over-reporting of behaviors.

Objective: Survival time is an important type of outcome variable in treatment research. Currently, limited guidance is available regarding performing mediation analyses with survival outcomes, which generally do not have normally distributed errors, and contain unobserved (censored) events. We present considerations for choosing an approach, using a comparison of semi-parametric proportional hazards (PH) and fully parametric accelerated failure time (AFT) approaches for illustration.

Method: We compare PH and AFT models and procedures in their integration into mediation models and review their ability to produce coefficients that estimate causal effects. Using simulation studies modeling Weibull-distributed survival times, we compare statistical properties of mediation analyses incorporating PH and AFT approaches (employing SAS procedures PHREG and LIFEREG, respectively) under varied data conditions, some including censoring. A simulated data set illustrates the findings.

Results: AFT models integrate more easily than PH models into mediation models. Furthermore, mediation analyses incorporating LIFEREG produce coefficients that can estimate causal effects, and demonstrate superior statistical properties. Censoring introduces bias in the coefficient estimate representing the treatment effect on outcome—underestimation in LIFEREG, and overestimation in PHREG. With LIFEREG, this bias can be addressed using an alternative estimate obtained from combining other coefficients, whereas this is not possible with PHREG.

Conclusions: When Weibull assumptions are not violated, there are compelling advantages to using LIFEREG over PHREG for mediation analyses involving survival-time outcomes. Irrespective of the procedures used, the interpretation of coefficients, effects of censoring on coefficient estimates, and statistical properties should be taken into account when reporting results.

This randomized prospective trial aimed to assess the feasibility and efficacy of a team-based worksite health and safety intervention for law enforcement personnel. Four-hundred and eight subjects were enrolled and half were randomized to meet for weekly, peer-led sessions delivered from a scripted team-based health and safety curriculum. Curriculum addressed: exercise, nutrition, stress, sleep, body weight, injury, and other unhealthy lifestyle behaviors such as smoking and heavy alcohol use. Health and safety questionnaires administered before and after the intervention found significant improvements for increased fruit and vegetable consumption, overall healthy eating, increased sleep quantity and sleep quality, and reduced personal stress.

Although previous research has studied power in mediation models, the extent to which the inclusion of a mediator will increase power has not been investigated. To address this deficit, in a first study we compared the analytical power values of the mediated effect and the total effect in a single-mediator model, to identify the situations in which the inclusion of one mediator increased statistical power. The results from this first study indicated that including a mediator increased statistical power in small samples with large coefficients and in large samples with small coefficients, and when coefficients were nonzero and equal across models. Next, we identified conditions under which power was greater for the test of the total mediated effect than for the test of the total effect in the parallel two-mediator model. These results indicated that including two mediators increased power in small samples with large coefficients and in large samples with small coefficients, the same pattern of results that had been found in the first study. Finally, we assessed the analytical power for a sequential (three-path) two-mediator model and compared the power to detect the three-path mediated effect to the power to detect both the test of the total effect and the test of the mediated effect for the single-mediator model. The results indicated that the three-path mediated effect had more power than the mediated effect from the single-mediator model and the test of the total effect. Practical implications of these results for researchers are then discussed.