The status of step-count monitoring and its association with physical activity and sedentary time among older adults: a cross-sectional study of silver human resources center members.
Korin Tateoka, Naofumi Yamamoto, Akiyo Higashionna and 1 others
Checking steps almost daily or three times a week was associated with having regular exercise habits among 622 older adults in a Japanese work center, but showed no link to sedentary time.
The cross-sectional design cannot show that monitoring causes exercise.
Key findings
1High-frequency step monitoring (almost daily or three times per week) was associated with higher odds of having exercise habits compared with not monitoring at all, after adjusting for age, sex, BMI, cohabitants, car ownership, life satisfaction, work status, health status, and pain (adjusted OR 3.329, 95% CI 2.266 to 4.891, p < 0.001).
2No significant association was found between step-count monitoring frequency and sedentary time in either the main adjusted model or the model that additionally adjusted for exercise habits.
3The association between high-frequency monitoring and exercise habits was significant in both device groups, and the odds ratios tended to be higher among those using activity monitors or smartwatches than among smartphone users.
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Single-center study in one Japanese city, so the findings may not generalise to other regions or countries. The population is members of a Silver Human Resources Center, a group that reportedly has higher health literacy and physical activity levels than the general older population, so results may overestimate monitoring rates and the association with exercise. Response rate was 32.6%, which the authors note may introduce selection bias. Physical activity and sedentary time were self-reported by questionnaire rather than measured with an accelerometer, which has lower accuracy. The cross-sectional design means the study cannot show that step-count monitoring causes exercise habits; people who already exercise may simply check their steps more often.
Declared interests
Funded by JSPS KAKENHI (grant number 23K10762). The authors declare no conflicts of interest and state that the funders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, writing, or the decision to publish.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the higher odds of exercise habits among frequent step-checkers as proof that monitoring causes exercise. The study is cross-sectional: people who already exercise may simply check their steps more often, and the design cannot separate which came first. The null finding for sedentary time also means you should not expect a pedometer or phone step counter to reduce a patient's sitting time on its own.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →