Repository logo
 

Development of methods to objectively identify time spent using active and motorised modes of travel to work: how do self-reported measures compare?

Published version
Peer-reviewed

Repository DOI


Type

Article

Change log

Authors

Nobre Da Costa, Silvia  ORCID logo  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7774-6711
Dalton, Alice 
Jones, Andy 

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Active commuting may make an important contribution to population health. Accurate measures of these behaviours are required, but it is unknown how self-reported estimates compare to those derived from objective measures. We sought to develop methods for objectively deriving time spent in specific travel behaviours from a combination of locational and activity data, and to assess the convergent validity of two self-reported estimates. METHODS: In 2010 and 2011, a sub-sample of participants from the Commuting and Health in Cambridge study concurrently completed objective monitoring using combined heart rate and movement sensors and global positioning system devices and reported their past-week commuting in a questionnaire (modes used, and usual time spent walking and cycling per trip) and in a day-by-day diary (all modes and durations). Automated and manual approaches were used to objectively identify total time spent using active and motorised modes. Agreement between self-reported and objectively-derived times was assessed using Lin's concordance coefficients, Bland-Altman plots and signed-rank tests. RESULTS: Compared to objective assessments, day-by-day diary estimates of time spent using active modes on the commute were overestimated by a mean of 1.1 minutes/trip (95% limits of agreement (LOA): -7.7 to 9.9, p < 0.001). The magnitude of overestimation was slightly larger, but not significant (p = 0.247), when walking or cycling was used alone (mean: 2.4 minutes/trip, 95% LOA: -6.8 to 11.5). Total time spent on the commute was overestimated by a mean of 1.9 minutes/trip (95% LOA: -15.3 to 19.0, p < 0.001). The mean differences between self-reported usual time and objective estimates were -1.1 minutes/trip (95% LOA: -8.7 to 6.4) for cycling and +2.4 minutes/trip (95% LOA: -10.9 to 15.7) for walking. Mean differences between usual and daily estimates of time were <1 minute/trip for both walking and cycling. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a novel method of combining objective data to identify time spent using active and motorised modes, and total time spent commuting. Compared to objectively-derived times, self-reported times spent active commuting were slightly overestimated with wide LOA, suggesting that they should be used with caution to infer aggregate weekly quantities of activity on the commute at the individual level.

Description

Keywords

Adult, Bicycling, Employment, Female, Geographic Information Systems, Health Behavior, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motor Activity, Self Report, Socioeconomic Factors, Transportation, United Kingdom, Walking

Journal Title

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act

Conference Name

Journal ISSN

1479-5868
1479-5868

Volume Title

11

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Sponsorship
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/G007462/1)
Medical Research Council (MR/K023187/1)
TCC (None)
Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12015/6)
NETSCC (None)
null (unknown)
Wellcome Trust (087636/Z/08/Z)
NIHR Evaluation Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (09/3001/06)
JP is supported by an NIHR post-doctoral fellowship and DO and SC are supported by the Medical Research Council [Unit Programme number MC_UP_12015/6]. The Commuting and Health in Cambridge study was developed by David Ogilvie, Simon Griffin, Andy Jones and Roger Mackett and initially funded under the auspices of the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. The study is now funded by the National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme (project number 09/3001/06: see http://www.phr.nihr.ac.uk/funded_projects).