Using a technique called meta-analysis, this allowed us to combine the results of all studies to come up with an overall trend. These include the average physical activity at the beginning and end of each study, the sample size and a measure of the variability in physical activity. To calculate the effect size, we used the data reported in the studies. The effect size is a method of adjusting the data to allow for an “apples-to-apples” comparison. The study groups ranged from large, nationally representative samples numbering tens of thousands of people to small samples of several hundred students from a few local schools.Īfter identifying the research studies, we calculated an “effect size” for each study. Scientists tracked the participants’ physical activity using a variety of wearable devices, from simple pedometers – step counters – to more sophisticated activity monitors like accelerometers. For example, one Japanese study of physical activity among adults ages 20 to 90 collected data each year for 22 years from people in each age group. Rather, they tracked samples of people from the same age group. It is important to note that these snapshots did not track specific individuals. We found 16 studies from eight different countries that met these criteria: Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Japan, Norway, Sweden and the United States. We wanted studies that obtained two “snapshots” of daily activity from a population, with the measurements separated by at least one year. To conduct the study, we first searched for published research that tracked physical activity such as walking, household activities or playing sports throughout the day. What’s more, we discovered that this was not an isolated effect in one or two countries, but a widespread trend. Our systematic review of data from eight developed nations around the world shows that despite the surge in sales of fitness trackers, physical activity declined from 1995 to 2017.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |