<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Dall PM</submitter><funding>Medical Research Council</funding><pagination>e013844</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC5775464</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>7(4)</volume><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Objective&lt;/h4>Sedentary behaviour (SB) has distinct deleterious health outcomes, yet there is no consensus on best practice for measurement. This study aimed to identify the optimal self-report tool for population surveillance of SB, using a systematic framework.&lt;h4>Design&lt;/h4>A framework, TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST), consisting of four domains (type of assessment, recall period, temporal unit and assessment period), was developed based on a systematic inventory of existing tools. The inventory was achieved through a systematic review of studies reporting SB and tracing back to the original description. A systematic review of the accuracy and sensitivity to change of these tools was then mapped against TASST domains.&lt;h4>Data sources&lt;/h4>Systematic search</pubmed_abstract><journal>BMJ open</journal><pubmed_title>TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self-report tools: content analysis and systematic review.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC5775464</pmcid><funding_grant_id>MR/K025023/1</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>MR/K00414X/1</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>Seniors USP: Understanding Sedentary Patterns MR/K</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Coulter EH</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Fitzsimons CF</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Chastin S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Starr J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Laird K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Mutrie N</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Sattar N</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Gill J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Shaw R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Greig C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Deary I</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Hindle E</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wyke S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Mead G</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Palmer V</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Cukic I</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Granat M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Radakovic R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Gale C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Stewart S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Skelton DA</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Seniors USP Team</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Dall PM</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Dontje M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Der G</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Gray C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Cox S</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self-report tools: content analysis and systematic review.</name><description>&lt;h4>Objective&lt;/h4>Sedentary behaviour (SB) has distinct deleterious health outcomes, yet there is no consensus on best practice for measurement. This study aimed to identify the optimal self-report tool for population surveillance of SB, using a systematic framework.&lt;h4>Design&lt;/h4>A framework, TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST), consisting of four domains (type of assessment, recall period, temporal unit and assessment period), was developed based on a systematic inventory of existing tools. The inventory was achieved through a systematic review of studies reporting SB and tracing back to the original description. A systematic review of the accuracy and sensitivity to change of these tools was then mapped against TASST domains.&lt;h4>Data sources&lt;/h4>Systematic search</description><dates><release>2017-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2017 Apr</publication><modification>2025-04-04T10:04:13.85Z</modification><creation>2019-03-26T22:46:39Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC5775464</accession><cross_references><pubmed>28391233</pubmed><doi>10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013844</doi></cross_references></HashMap>