Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Oct 4;18(10):e0292222. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292222

Patterns and correlates of physical activity and sedentary behavior among Bangkok residents: A cross-sectional study

Thitikorn Topothai 1,2,3,*, Viroj Tangcharoensathien 2, Sarah Martine Edney 1, Rapeepong Suphanchaimat 2,4, Angkana Lekagul 2, Orratai Waleewong 2, Chompoonut Topothai 1,2,5, Anond Kulthanmanusorn 2, Falk Müller-Riemenschneider 1,6,7
Editor: Nipun Shrestha8
PMCID: PMC10550145  PMID: 37792743

Abstract

Background

Physical inactivity and sedentary behavior are significant risk factors for various non-communicable diseases. Bangkok, Thailand’s capital, is one of the fastest-growing metropolitans in Southeast Asia. Few studies have investigated the epidemiology of physical activity and sedentary behavior among Bangkok residents. This study aims to investigate the prevalence of combined physical activity and sedentary behavior patterns among Bangkok residents and examine relationships between participants’ characteristics and the combined movement patterns.

Methods

We analyzed data from the nationally representative 2021 Health Behavior Survey conducted by the Thailand National Statistical Office. The Global Physical Activity Questionnaire was used to assess physical activity and sedentary behavior. ‘Sufficiently active’ was defined as meeting the World Health Organization’s guidelines for aerobic physical activity (≥150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week). ‘Low sedentary time’ was defined as sitting for ≤7 hours per day. Participants were categorized into one of four movement patterns: highly active/low sedentary, highly active/highly sedentary, low active/low sedentary, and low active/highly sedentary. Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify the factors associated with each group of four movement patterns.

Results

Among the 3,137 individuals included in the study, the majority were categorized as highly active/highly sedentary (64.8%), followed by highly active/low sedentary (17.9%) and low active/highly sedentary (14.3%). Only a few (3.0%) of participants were categorized as being low active/low sedentary. Compared to males, female participants had a significantly higher likelihood of belonging to the highly active/low sedentary (AOR = 1.69, 95%CI: 1.25, 2.28) or highly active/highly sedentary (AOR = 1.51, 95%CI: 1.19, 1.93) group, rather than the low active/high sedentary group. Compared to unemployed/retired participants, those in labor-intensive occupations had a significantly higher likelihood of being in the highly active/low sedentary group (AOR = 1.89, 95%CI: 1.22, 2.94). Compared to participants with no chronic physical conditions, participants who reported multimorbidity had a significantly lower likelihood of being in the highly active/low sedentary group (AOR = 0.60, 95%CI: 0.37, 0.98).

Conclusion

This study provides valuable insights into the patterns of physical activity and sedentary behavior among residents of Bangkok using up-to-date data. The majority belonged to the highly active/highly sedentary group, followed by the highly active/low sedentary group. Correlates such as sex, occupation, and chronic conditions were associated with these patterns. Targeted interventions in recreational activities, workplaces, and urban areas, including screen time control measures, movement breaks and improved built environments, are crucial in reducing sedentary behavior and promoting physical activity.

Background

Physical inactivity and sedentary behavior are well-established risk factors for non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia, depression, and premature mortality [1, 2]. The prevalence of physical inactivity globally is a concern. A pooled analysis of population-based surveys from 168 countries representing nine regions from around the world, suggests that approximately 28% of adults aged 18 years and older [3] do not meet the physical activity levels recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). These recommendations are that adults should complete ≥150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, per week [4]. Globally, each year, physical inactivity contributes to 7.2% of total deaths and 69% of these deaths occur in middle-income countries [1]. The economic impact of physical inactivity is substantial, with global costs reaching INT$ 54 billion in direct healthcare expenses and INT$ 14 billion in lost productivity, per year [5].

Thailand, an upper-middle-income country in Southeast Asia, is experiencing increasingly high rates of physical inactivity and sedentary behavior and a growing burden of NCDs [610]. The proportion of adults who engage in sufficient physical activity has declined over time. In 2009 and 2015, 81.5% [8] and 80.8% [6] of the population were classified as sufficiently active, respectively. To address this, in 2018 the Thai government launched the National Physical Activity Strategy 2018–2030 [11] alongside various physical activity-promoting initiatives in cities across the country [12]. However in 2020, and potentially due to restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic [13], the proportion of adults who engaged in sufficient physical activity declined to 69.1% in 2020 [7] and then increased slightly to 71.9% in 2021 [14]. Rates of sedentary behavior are also high, a national survey conducted in 2021 indicated that 75.8% of adults in Thailand were classified as highly sedentary (defined as being sedentary for ≥7 hours per day) [14].

Bangkok is the capital and most populous city of Thailand. Rapid and significant urbanization of the city has potentially had negative implications for physical activity, sedentary behavior [15], and the prevalence of NCDs [16]. Bangkok is one of the fastest growing urban centers in Southeast Asia. In 1950, the city was inhabited by just 1.4 million people [17]. As of 2023, the population has surpassed 11 million people [17], which accounts for approximately 16% of the country’s population [18]. In Thailand, existing epidemiological investigations of physical activity and sedentary behavior have predominantly been conducted at the national level [1922]. Limited studies have focused specifically on Bangkok, and those that are available have concentrated on specific aspects of physical activity, such as exercise or transport behavior, rather than total physical activity and sedentary behavior [2327]. Bangkok’s urbanization is part of a global trend. Understanding how urbanization influences physical activity and sedentary behavior in Bangkok can provide insights into similar trends in other urban centers worldwide, and will be particularly relevant for cities in other countries that are experiencing rapid urbanization.

Physical inactivity and sedentary behavior are independent risk factors for NCDs and premature mortality [2, 28]. However, when these risk factors coexist, they may have a synergistic effect that exacerbates their impact [29]. Consequently, it is important to identify patterns of combined physical activity and sedentary behaviors. Such findings can help inform and improve public health strategies and policies in urban areas.

Therefore, this study aims to investigate the prevalence of combined physical activity and sedentary behavior patterns and the associations between these behavior patterns and socio-demographic characteristics, of residents of Bangkok.

Method

Sample and procedure

This study uses data from the nationally representative 2021 Thai Health Behavior Survey, which was conducted by the National Statistical Office (NSO) to evaluate the prevalence of NCDs and associated risk factors (tobacco use, alcohol consumption, unhealthy diet consumption, physical activity, and sedentary behavior) in the Thai population [30]. Random sampling was used to identify households to be invited to participate in a computer-assisted personal interview. Recruitment was stratified to ensure national coverage and representation at the provincial level (covering all 77 provinces, including Bangkok). Participants were eligible for the interview if they were present in the household and were aged 6 years old or above. Questions related to physical activity and sedentary behavior were only collected from participants aged 15 years old or above. Each interview lasted between 60–90 minutes. All interviews were conducted between March and May 2021.

For the current study, we included data from participants aged between 18 and 80 years to align with the age range for the WHO’s physical activity and sedentary behavior guidelines for adults [4], and because there were concerns related to the accuracy of data provided by the very elderly [31].

Measures

Participants’ characteristics

Participants provided information on their sex (male, female), age (in years), marital status, education, occupation, and monthly income. Age was classified into three categories (18–45, 46–59, 60–80 years old), marital status was classified into two categories (single/divorced/separated/widowed, married/cohabiting), education level was classified into two categories (<secondary education, ≥secondary education), and occupation was classified into three categories (unemployed/retired, office-based, labor-intensive). Monthly individual income was dichotomized (< 12,000, ≥ 12,000), based on the median (median = 12,000 baht, US$ 1 = 35 baht).

Health status information included body mass index (BMI) and chronic physical condition(s). BMI was calculated from the respondents’ self-reported weight and height, and then categorized into (i) healthy weight (BMI <23 kg/m2) or (ii) overweight and obese (BMI > = 23 kg/m2), following BMI classifications for Asian populations [32]. For chronic physical conditions, respondents indicated whether a physician had diagnosed them with any of the following nine chronic conditions: hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer, depression, or osteoarthritis. For each respondent, the total number of chronic conditions was calculated, and individuals were then categorized as (i) having no chronic condition, (ii) having one chronic condition, or (iii) having multimorbidity (i.e., two or more chronic conditions).

Physical activity and sedentary behavior

The Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ) [33] was used to assess levels of physical activity and sedentary behavior. Respondents reported the frequency and duration of moderate and vigorous-intensity physical activity engaged in as part of their work, or for transport or recreation during a typical week. The WHO physical activity guidelines were used to classify whether participants were sufficiently active or not [4]. ‘Sufficiently active’ was classified as completing at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination of both, throughout the week.

The GPAQ includes one question on sedentary behavior: "How much time do you usually spend sitting or reclining on a typical day?". Respondents who self-reported ≤7 hours per day of sedentary behavior were categorized as ‘low sedentary behavior’, based on recent evidence that this threshold was associated with a lower risk of mortality [2].

The GPAQ has demonstrated acceptable convergent validity (Spearman’s rho = 0.33, p-value <0.01) when compared with accelerometer-based measurements of physical activity, and has good seven-day test-retest reliability (Spearman’s rho = 0.77, p-value <0.01) amongst adults in Thailand [34].

Data management and statistical analysis

GPAQ data were analyzed in accordance with the analysis guide [33]. Invalid data, such as instances where respondents reported being active for more than 7 days per week or for more than 16 hours per day, were excluded from analysis. Respondents with inconsistent or missing physical activity data or sociodemographic data were also excluded from the analysis.

Descriptive analysis was conducted to assess the frequency and percentage of participants across four mutually exclusive movement patterns of physical activity and sedentary behavior combinations: (i) highly active/low sedentary (participants with sufficient physical activity and low levels of sedentary behavior), (ii) highly active/highly sedentary (participants with sufficient physical activity and high levels of sedentary behavior), (iii) low active/low sedentary (participants with insufficient physical activity and low levels of sedentary behavior), and (iv) low active/highly sedentary (participants with insufficient activity and high levels of sedentary behavior). The association between participants’ characteristics and movement patterns was examined using the chi-square test, and the resulting statistical significance was reported as a p-value.

Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine relationships between participants’ characteristics and the four movement patterns of physical activity and sedentary behavior combinations, with ’low active/highly sedentary’ as the reference group. All analyses employed survey weights to account for respondents in each household, non-response, and post-stratification, consistent with the survey methods [30]. Associates were reported as adjusted odds ratio (AOR), with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and p-values.

Analyses were conducted in Stata Statistical Software version 17 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA).

Ethics approval and consent

In accordance with the Statistics Act, B.E.2550 (2007) [35], which mandated NSO to conduct regular population surveys, ethical review and approval were not required. Respondent consent was also waived, as the survey was conducted by the NSO as part of its institutional and legal mandate [8]. The research team was authorized by the NSO to access the survey microdata for the purpose of conducting this research. Additionally, the Institutional Review Board of the Department of Health, Ministry of Public Health Thailand granted this study a research ethics exemption (No. 533/2565) in July 2022.

Results

Study participants

There were 8,538 Bangkok residents who were screened for eligibility for this study. Potential participants were excluded based on age (either below 18 years or above 80 years of age, n = 1,892), for not being present at home on the interview dates (n = 3,345), for providing invalid data (n = 14) or incomplete sociodemographic data (n = 150). The final sample size for analysis consisted of 3,137 participants (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Study participant flow chart.

Fig 1

Participant characteristics

The characteristics of participants are shown in Table 1. The majority were female (55.2%), aged 18–45 years (52.2%), married (54.3%), had completed secondary education (65.4%), were employed in office-based work (46.5%), and were free of chronic medical conditions (74.0%). Based on BMI, roughly equal proportions of participants were classified as having a healthy weight or having overweight/obesity.

Table 1. Participant characteristics, all participants and according to the four physical activity and sedentary behavior combination movement patterns.

Participants’ characteristics Overall Highly active/low sedentary Highly active/highly sedentary Low active/low sedentary Low active/highly sedentary p-valuea
N = 3,137 (100%) n = 562 (17.9%) n = 2,032 (64.8%) n = 94 (3.0%) n = 449 (14.3%)
n Weighted % n Weighted % n Weighted % n Weighted % n Weighted %
Overall sample 3,137 100.0 562 100.0 2,032 100.0 94 100.0 449 100.0
Sex 0.001
Male 1,404 44.8 239 42.6 880 43.3 50 53.1 235 52.2
Female 1,733 55.2 323 57.4 1,152 56.7 44 46.9 214 47.8
Age (years) 0.17
18–45 1,639 52.2 308 54.7 1,076 53.0 40 42.4 215 48.0
46–60 888 28.3 155 27.6 569 28.0 27 28.9 137 30.4
61–80 610 19.5 99 17.7 387 19.0 27 28.7 97 21.6
Marital status 0.54
Single/divorced/separated/widowed 1,432 45.7 254 45.3 919 45.3 42 44.7 216 48.2
Married/cohabiting 1,705 54.3 308 54.7 1,113 54.7 52 55.3 233 51.8
Education 0.002
Below secondary education 1,085 34.6 228 40.6 657 32.3 36 38.3 163 36.4
At least secondarys education 2,052 65.4 334 59.4 1,375 67.7 58 61.7 286 63.6
Occupation 0.003
Unemployed/retired 811 25.9 119 21.2 543 26.7 28 30.2 121 26.9
Office-based workers 1,459 46.5 248 44.0 955 47.0 40 42.2 217 48.3
Labor-intensive workers 867 27.6 195 34.8 534 26.3 26 27.6 111 24.8
Income (median: baht/month) 0.90
<12,000 1,457 46.5 262 46.5 959 47.2 38 40.0 199 44.4
> = 12,000 1,680 53.5 300 53.5 1,073 52.8 56 60.0 250 55.6
Body mass index (BMI) 0.49
Healthy weight (BMI <23) 1,551 49.5 273 48.6 994 48.9 53 56.9 231 51.5
Overweight/obesityo (BMI > = 23) 1,586 50.5 289 51.4 1,038 51.1 41 43.1 218 48.5
Chronic physical condition 0.10
No chronic condition 2,320 74.0 435 77.3 1,504 74.0 64 68.6 318 70.7
One chronic condition 440 14.0 72 12.8 290 14.3 13 13.5 64 14.4
Multimorbidity 377 12.0 55 9.9 238 11.7 17 17.9 67 14.9

a Bivariate association between categorical variables and physical activity/ sedentary behavior were examined via chi-square analyses.

Overall proportion of combined physical activity and sedentary behavior patterns

The majority of participants were categorized as being highly active/highly sedentary (64.8%), followed by being highly active/low sedentary (17.9%) and then being low active/highly sedentary (14.3%) (Table 1). Only a few participants (3.0%) were categorized as low active/low sedentary.

Proportion of combined physical activity and sedentary behavior patterns by participants’ characteristics

Participant characteristics varied across the four movement patterns (Fig 2). The highest proportion of participants being highly active/low sedentary were participants with labor-intensive employment (22.5%), while the lowest proportions were observed among unemployed/retired participants (14.7%) and participants with multimorbidity (14.7%). More females (18.6%) belonged to this category as compared to males (17.1%), and participants with lower levels of education (21.0%) had a higher proportion of being in this category than those with higher education (16.3%). For the highly active/highly sedentary group, the highest proportion was observed among those with higher levels of education (67.0%), while the lowest was among those with lower levels of education (60.6%). For being low active/low sedentary, the highest proportion was observed among participants aged 60–80 years (4.4%) and those with multimorbidity (4.4%), equally. TheT lowest proportion was in participants aged 18–45 years (2.4%). Lastly, for being low active/highly sedentary, the highest proportion was among participants with multimorbidity (17.8%), followed by male participants (16.7%) and participants aged 60–80 years (15.9%), respectively. While the lowest proportion was found in female participants (12.4%), followed by labor-intensive participants (12.9%) and participants aged 18–45 years (13.1%), respectively.

Fig 2. The proportion of four combined physical activity and sedentary behavior patterns by participants’ characteristics.

Fig 2

Association between combined physical activity and sedentary behavior patterns and participants’ characteristics: Multinomial logistic regression

Results from the multinomial logistic regression, examining the association between the four groups of physical activity and sedentary behavior combinations and participants’ characteristics, were presented in Table 2. Compared to males, females had a significantly higher likelihood of belonging to either the highly active/low sedentary group (AOR = 1.69, 95%CI: 1.25, 2.28) or highly active/highly sedentary group (AOR = 1.51, 95%CI: 1.19, 1.93) as compared to the low active/high sedentary group. Labor-intensive participants, when compared to unemployed/retired participants, had a significantly higher likelihood of being in the highly active/low sedentary group rather than the low active/highly sedentary group (AOR = 1.89, 95%CI: 1.22, 2.94). Participants who reported multimorbidity had a significantly lower likelihood of being in the highly active/low sedentary group compared to the low active/highly sedentary (AOR = 0.60, 95%CI: 0.37, 0.98), as compared to those with no chronic physical conditions.

Table 2. Multinomial logistic regression analyses of association between movement patterns of physical active and sedentary behavior combinations and participants’ correlates (weighted).

Correlates Highly active/low sedentary (n = 562) Highly active/highly sedentary (n = 2,032) Low active/low sedentary (n = 94)
AOR 95% CI p AOR 95% CI p AOR 95% CI p
Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
Sex
    female 1.69 1.25 2.28 0.001 1.51 1.19 1.93 0.001 1.02 0.66 1.60 0.92
    ref = male
Age (years) 0.71 0.41 0.11
    46–59 0.80 0.57 1.13 0.20 0.84 0.64 1.11 0.22 1.11 0.63 1.98 0.72
    60–80 0.97 0.63 1.49 0.90 0.88 0.62 1.24 0.46 1.65 0.88 3.06 0.12
    ref = 18–45
Marital status
    married/co-habiting 1.10 0.83 1.46 0.51 1.15 0.91 1.45 0.24 1.14 0.72 1.80 0.58
    ref = single/divorced/separated/widowed
Education
    at least secondary education 0.90 0.66 1.24 0.53 1.27 0.98 1.63 0.07 0.94 0.54 1.62 0.82
    ref = below secondary education
Occupation 0.005 0.35 0.87
    office-based workers 1.19 0.80 1.77 0.39 1.00 0.74 1.36 0.99 0.77 0.44 1.34 0.35
    labor-intensive workers 1.89 1.22 2.94 0.005 1.20 0.83 1.73 0.33 1.03 0.54 1.95 0.93
    ref = unemployed/retired
Income
    > = 12,000 baht/month 0.92 0.66 1.28 0.63 0.86 0.67 1.11 0.25 1.52 0.92 2.51 0.10
    ref = <12,000 baht/month
Body mass index (BMI)
    BMI > = 23 1.24 0.93 1.66 0.14 1.20 0.94 1.52 0.14 0.77 0.49 1.21 0.26
    ref = BMI <23
Chronic physical condition 0.06 0.31 0.93
    one chronic condition 0.84 0.55 1.27 0.41 0.99 0.71 1.40 0.97 0.83 0.42 1.62 0.58
    multimorbidity 0.60 0.37 0.98 0.04 0.79 0.54 1.14 0.21 1.03 0.54 1.95 0.93
    ref = no chronic condition

AOR = adjusted odds ratio, 95% CI = 95% confidence interval, p = p-value

Ref = low active/highly sedentary (n = 449)

Discussion

This study investigated patterns and correlates of physical activity and sedentary behavior among the adult population in Bangkok using the most up-to-date nationally representative data. Result indicate that the largest proportion of the study participants belonged to the highly active/highly sedentary group, followed by the highly active/low sedentary group. The study also identified associations between sex, occupation type, and presence of chronic physical conditions, and their influence on the likelihood of an individual belonging to each of the four combined physical activity and sedentary behavior patterns.

The findings suggest that less than one-fifth (17.9%) of Bangkok residents may achieve the recommended levels of physical activity engage in low levels of sedentary behavior, the combination with the greatest benefit for health [29]. However, two-thirds of participants reported sufficient physical activity but still engaged in high levels of sedentary behavior. This presents a significant public health concern since sedentary behavior, regardless of physical activity levels, is a risk factor for NCDs and increases the risk of all-cause mortality [2, 36]. Therefore, it would be beneficial to prioritize efforts towards mobilizing the large proportion of the population who are currently classified as being highly active/highly sedentary or low active/highly sedentary, to reduce their sedentary time. This strategy is aligned with the WHO concept of ‘every move counts’ [4] and could serve as an initial health promotion phase, which would be followed by targeting physical activity during subsequent phases. Interventions to replace sedentary behavior with light-to-moderate-intensity movement several times a day could be developed. Examples include using screen time control measures such as electronic lock-out systems on televisions, computers, or smartphones [37]. Furthermore, promoting urban planning strategies that prioritize walkable cities, enhance public transport systems, and establish neighborhoods and urban areas that integrate residential, commercial, and recreational spaces, are also advisable [3841].

Our results indicate that females had a higher likelihood of being either highly active/low sedentary or highly active/highly sedentary, as compared to males. This contrasted with the results of a national survey conducted in Thailand in 2015, which indicated that males were more likely to achieve sufficient physical activity [19]. Global trends from 2001–2016 also suggested that the prevalence of sufficient physical activity was higher in men (76.6%) than in women (68.3%) [3]. However, the discrepancy between the previous and current reporting of physical activity in women could be due to changes in the workforce. Employment of women in the formal industrial section in Bangkok [42] has increased by 0.8 million females, representing around 12% growth over the past seven years. The majority of these women are working in the manufacturing, or in wholesale and retail trade (26.4% and 16.7%, respectively) [43]. This trend aligns with other upper-middle-income and high-income countries, where the majority of women (64% and 67%, respectively) are now participating in workforce [44]. This shift in women’s employment provides opportunities for women to leave their homes for workplaces and may increase their physical movements, particularly for transport purposes [10]. It should also be acknowledged that data collection for this survey was conducted during the implementation of social distancing measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These measures influenced the physical mobility of individuals’, where trips decreased by 11% (from 9,580 million in 2020 to 8,522 million in 2021) [45]. This could result in a decrease in physical activity and an increase in sedentary behavior [13, 46].

Furthermore, this study indicates that labor-intensive occupations had a higher likelihood of being highly active/low sedentary compared to other occupations. This finding is consistent with prior research on occupational physical activity conducted globally [47, 48], in Asia [4951], and specifically in Thailand [20, 21]. This phenomenon can be attributed to the physical demands of labor-intensive work. In contrast, unemployed or retired individuals, as well as office-based employees, often experience less physical demand and instead engage in prolonged periods of sitting. Notably, the rapid progress of urbanization, particularly in low- and middle-income countries [15], has led to a shift in the labor sector away from labor-intensive jobs and towards more sedentary occupations [48, 52, 53]. The proportion of labor-intensive occupations dropped substantially from 2015 to 2021 (from 23.8 to 19.5, respectively). Similarly, the proportion of office-based occupations increased substantially during the same period (from 14.2 to 18.0 million) [43]. Consequently, policy interventions should focus on enhancing opportunities and improving environmental factors that facilitate physical activity while minimizing sedentary behavior in the workplace [54]. Examples include using sit-stand desks, treadmill desks, or cycling desks combined with educational information, counseling, and short breaks or walking strategies [55]. Implementing point-of-choice prompting software along with educational initiatives may also prove effective [55]. Social-level components such as team movement breaks with incentives, like lottery rewards in Thailand can further encourage behavioral change [56].

Participants with multimorbidity had a significantly lower likelihood of being highly active/low sedentary as compared to those without chronic physical conditions. This finding was consistent with the previous Thai national survey in 2015 [19] and a study conducted on the multi-ethnic Asian population in Singapore [50]. It may be that the presence of multiple physical limitations, pain, and fatigue that are often associated with multimorbidity reduces time spent active and increases time spent sedentary [57, 58]. Additionally, the cumulative burden of multiple chronic conditions can have a psychological impact on individuals, leading to increased stress, anxiety, and depression, and thereby exacerbating the challenges faced in engaging in regular physical activity [59]. Effectively addressing these barriers necessitates the implementation of customized exercise programs and comprehensive support systems [59, 60].

The strengths and limitations of this study should be acknowledged. A key strength was the utilization of data from the NSO, which provided a large representative sample of households in Bangkok. This approach facilitated robust estimations of the prevalence of physical activity and sedentary behavior. Limitations should also be considered when interpreting the findings. Firstly, the reliance on self-reported data using the GPAQ introduced the potential for memory bias. Participants may have difficulty accurately recalling their physical activity and sedentary behavior over the previous seven days, leading to inaccuracies in the reported prevalence rates. Furthermore, self-report measures were subject to socially desirable biases [61]. Secondly, this study is cross-sectional in nature, thereby precluding the establishment of causal relationships between the independent variables and the outcomes. Lastly, the implementation of COVID-19 physical and social distancing measures during the data collection period may have had an impact on the prevalence of physical activity and increased sedentary behavior.

Conclusion

This study examines the patterns and factors associated with physical activity and sedentary behavior among the population in Bangkok, using up-to-date nationally representative data. The findings indicate that the majority of participants belong to the highly active/highly sedentary group, followed by the highly active/low sedentary group. Several correlates, including sex, occupation, and chronic physical conditions, were found to be associated with different physical activity and sedentary behavior patterns. These findings highlight the need for targeted interventions to create supportive environments that facilitate physical activity and reduce sedentary behavior in recreational activities, workplaces, and urban settings, such as implementing screen time control measures and movement breaks. Additionally, enhancing the built environment in Bangkok, including promoting walkable cities and improving public transport systems, can play a significant role in addressing these issues.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the National Statistical Office for providing the valuable database and to all participants and staff involved in the study. We reserve special thanks to Dr Nicholas Alexander Petrunoff, Dr Borame Sue Lee Dickens from the National University of Singapore, Ms Orana Chandrasiri, Dr Sigit Arifwidodo from the Kasetsart University, and Dr Vuthiphan Vongmongkol and Ms Jintana Jankhotkaew from the International Health Policy Program for their unrelenting support and invaluable advice throughout the study course.

Abbreviations

AOR

Adjusted odds ratio

BMI

Body mass index

CI

Confidence interval

GPAQ

Global Physical Activity Questionnaire

METs

Metabolic equivalents

NCD

Non-communicable diseases

NSO

National Statistical Office

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

the data can be downloaded from the Thailand National Statistics Office’s website: http://www.nso.go.th/sites/2014en/Pages/survey/Social/Health/The-2020-Health-behavior-population-survey.aspx.

Funding Statement

(1) Thailand Science Research and Innovation (TSRI) for the Senior Research Scholar on Health Policy and System Research (Contract No. RTA6280007) and (2) the Capacity Building on Health Policy and Systems Research program (HPSR Fellowship) under cooperation between the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Co-operatives (BAAC), National Health Security Office (NHSO), and International Health Policy Program Foundation (IHPF).

References

  • 1.Katzmarzyk P. T., Friedenreich C., Shiroma E. J. and Lee I. M. "Physical inactivity and non-communicable disease burden in low-income, middle-income and high-income countries." Br J Sports Med 56 (2022): 101–06. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-103640 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33782046. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ku P. W., Steptoe A., Liao Y., Hsueh M. C. and Chen L. J. "A cut-off of daily sedentary time and all-cause mortality in adults: A meta-regression analysis involving more than 1 million participants." BMC Med 16 (2018): 74. doi: 10.1186/s12916-018-1062-2 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29793552. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Guthold R., Stevens G. A., Riley L. M. and Bull F. C. "Worldwide trends in insufficient physical activity from 2001 to 2016: A pooled analysis of 358 population-based surveys with 1.9 million participants." Lancet Glob Health 6 (2018): e1077–e86. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30357-7 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30193830. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bull F. C., Al-Ansari S. S., Biddle S., Borodulin K., Buman M. P., Cardon G., et al. "World health organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour." Br J Sports Med 54 (2020): 1451–62. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102955 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33239350. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ding D., Lawson K. D., Kolbe-Alexander T. L., Finkelstein E. A., Katzmarzyk P. T., van Mechelen W., et al. "The economic burden of physical inactivity: A global analysis of major non-communicable diseases." Lancet 388 (2016): 1311–24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30383-X https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27475266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ekpalakorn V. The 5th thai national health examination survey 2014–2015. Bangkok: Health System Research Institute, 2015, [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ekpalakorn V. The 6th thai national health examination survey 2019–2020. Bangkok: Health System Research Institute, 2020, [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ekpalakorn V. The 4th thai national health examination survey 2008–2009. Bangkok: Health System Research Institute, 2009, [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Thailand Physical Activity Knowledge Development Center. Regenerating physical activity in thailand after covid-19 pandemic. Nakornpathom: Thailand Physical Activity Knowledge Development Center, 2020, [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Topothai T., Tangcharoensathien V., Suphanchaimat R., Petrunoff N., Chandrasiri O. and Müller-Riemenschneider F. "Patterns of physical activity and sedentary behavior during the covid-19 pandemic in the thai 2021 national health survey." Journal of Physical Activity & Health (2023): doi: 10.1123/jpah.2022-0528 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Division of Physical Activity and Health, Department of Health and Ministry of Public Health. Thailand physical activity strategy 2018–2030 Bangkok: NC Concept, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Khamput T., Patsorn K., Thongbo T., Seunglee S., Keryai T., Sangsamritpol W., et al. "Administration of physical activity promotion by twelve local administrative organizations in thailand." Health Systems Research 13 (2019): 63–89. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Katewongsa P., Widyastaria D. A., Saonuam P., Haematulin N. and Wongsingha N. "The effects of covid-19 pandemic on physical activity of the thai population: Evidence from thailand’s surveillance on physical activity 2020." J Sport Health Sci (2020): doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2020.10.001 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33039655. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Topothai T., Tangcharoensathien V., Suphanchaimat R., Petrunoff N. A., Chandrasiri O. and Muller-Riemenschneider F. "Patterns of physical activity and sedentary behavior during the covid-19 pandemic in the thai 2021 national health survey." J Phys Act Health (2023): 1–10. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2022-0528 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36918019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.United Nations. World urbanization prospects: The 2018 revision. New York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2018, [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bangkok post. "Half of bangkok’s population are obese!" Bangkok: Bangkok post, 2023. https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/pr/2510844/half-of-bangkoks-population-are-obese-. 27 Apr 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Macrotrends. "Bangkok, thailand metro area population 1950–2023." Macrotrends, 2023. https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/22617/bangkok/population. 27 April 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Worldometer. "Thailand population." Worldometer, 2023. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/thailand-population/. 27 April 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Liangruenrom N., Topothai T., Topothai C., Suriyawongpaisan W., Limwattananon S., Limwattananon C., et al. "Do thai people meet recommended physical activity level?: The 2015 national health and welfare survey." Health Systems Research 11 (2017): 205–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Topothai T., Liangruenrom N., Topothai C., Suriyawongpaisan W., Limwattananon S., Limwattananon C., et al. "How much of energy expenditure from physical activity and sedentary behavior of thai adults: The 2015 national health and welfare survey." Health Systems Research 11 (2017): 327–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Topothai T., Topothai C., Pongutta S., Suriyawongpaisan W., Chandrasiri O. and Thammarangsi T. "The daily energy expenditure of 4 domains of physical activity of thai adults." Health Systems Research 9 (2015): 168–80. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tuangratananon T., Liangruenrom N., Topothai T., Topothai C., Limwattananon S., Limwattananon C., et al. "Differences in physical activity levels between urban and rural adults in thailand: Findings from the 2015 national health and welfare survey." Health Systems Research 12 (2018): 27–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ronghanam P. Walking behaviors of commuter who have switched to use the bangkok mass transit system (bts). Master of Urban and Regional Planning Program in Urban and Regional Planning Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University, 2013, 109. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Dajpratham P C. N. "Knowledge and practice of physical exercise among the inhabitants of bangkok." J Med Assoc Thai 90 (2007): 2470–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Arifwidodo S. D. and Chandrasiri O. "The effects of park improvement on park use and park-based physical activity." Architecture & urbanism 45 (2021): [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Arifwidodo S. D. and Chandrasiri O. "Association between park characteristics and park-based physical activity using systematic observation: Insights from bangkok, thailand." Sustainability 12 (2020): 2559. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/6/2559. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Arifwidodo S. D., Chandrasiri O., Rasri N., Sirawarong W., Rattanawichit P. and Sangyuan N. Association between park visitation and physical activity among adults in bangkok, thailand. 14. 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ekelund U., Ward H. A., Norat T., Luan J., May A. M., Weiderpass E., et al. "Physical activity and all-cause mortality across levels of overall and abdominal adiposity in european men and women: The european prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition study (epic)." Am J Clin Nutr 101 (2015): 613–21. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.114.100065 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25733647. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bakrania K., Edwardson C. L., Bodicoat D. H., Esliger D. W., Gill J. M., Kazi A., et al. "Associations of mutually exclusive categories of physical activity and sedentary time with markers of cardiometabolic health in english adults: A cross-sectional analysis of the health survey for england." BMC Public Health 16 (2016): 25. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-2694-9 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26753523. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.National Statistical Office. The report of 2021 health behavior of population survey. Bangkok: National Statistical Office, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ogonowska-Slodownik A., Morgulec-Adamowicz N., Geigle P. R., Kalbarczyk M. and Kosmol A. "Objective and self-reported assessment of physical activity of women over 60 years old." Springer Link 47 (2022): 307–20. 10.1007/s12126-021-09423-z. https://link.springer.com/article/ [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.World Health Organization. The asia-pacific perspective: Redefining obesity and its treatment. Geneva: WHO, 2000, 378–420. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.World Health Organization. Global physical activity questionnaire (gpaq) Geneva: World Health Organization.
  • 34.Visuthipanich V. "Psychometric testing of gpaq among the thai population." Thai Pharmaceutical and Health Science Journal 11 (2016): 144–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Gazette T. R. The statistics act, b.E. 2550 (2007). Bangkok: Thai Royal Gazette, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Jingjie W., Yang L., Jing Y., Ran L., Yiqing X. and Zhou N. "Sedentary time and its association with risk of cardiovascular diseases in adults: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies." BMC Public Health 22 (2022): 286. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-12728-6 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35148747. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Nipun S., Jozo G., Glen W., Alexandra P., Hrvoje P., Jason A. B., et al. "Effectiveness of interventions for reducing non-occupational sedentary behaviour in adults and older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis." British Journal of Sports Medicine 53 (2019): 1206. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-098270 http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/53/19/1206.abstract. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lowe M., Adlakha D., Sallis J. F., Salvo D., Cerin E., Moudon A. V., et al. "City planning policies to support health and sustainability: An international comparison of policy indicators for 25 cities." Lancet Glob Health 10 (2022): e882–e94. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00069-9 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35561723. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Sallis J. F., Cerin E., Kerr J., Adams M. A., Sugiyama T., Christiansen L. B., et al. "Built environment, physical activity, and obesity: Findings from the international physical activity and environment network (ipen) adult study." Annu Rev Public Health 41 (2020): 119–39. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-043657 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32237990. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Omura J. D., Carlson S. A., Brown D. R., Hopkins D. P., Kraus W. E., Staffileno B. A., et al. "Built environment approaches to increase physical activity: A science advisory from the american heart association." Circulation 142 (2020): e160–e66. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000884 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32787451. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Elshahat S., O’Rorke M. and Adlakha D. "Built environment correlates of physical activity in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review." PLoS One 15 (2020): e0230454. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230454 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32182278. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Werawutiwong N. Gender and power in the thai workforce: An exploration of the dynamic career experience of the generation-y thai female employees in bangkok. Master. Exeter: Exeter, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ministry of Labour. Labour statistics yearbook 2021. Bangkok: Ministry of Labour, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.The World Bank. "Female labor force participation." The World Bank, 2022. https://genderdata.worldbank.org/data-stories/flfp-data-story/https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ministry of Transportation. Database on public transport use in thailand. Bangkok: Ministry of Transportation, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Pecanha T., Goessler K. F., Roschel H. and Gualano B. "Social isolation during the covid-19 pandemic can increase physical inactivity and the global burden of cardiovascular disease." Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 318 (2020): H1441–H46. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00268.2020 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32412779. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ng S. W., Howard A. G., Wang H. J., Su C. and Zhang B. "The physical activity transition among adults in china: 1991–2011." Obes Rev 15 Suppl 1 (2014): 27–36. doi: 10.1111/obr.12127 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24341756. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Ng S. W. and Popkin B. M. "Time use and physical activity: A shift away from movement across the globe." Obes Rev 13 (2012): 659–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00982.x https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22694051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia. Status report on ‘physical activity and health in the south-east asia region’. New Delhi: World Health Organization. Regional Office for South-East Asia., 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Lau J. H., Nair A., Abdin E., Kumarasan R., Wang P., Devi F., et al. "Prevalence and patterns of physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and their association with health-related quality of life within a multi-ethnic asian population." BMC Public Health 21 (2021): 1939. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11902-6 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34696751. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Win A. M., Yen L. W., Tan K. H., Lim R. B., Chia K. S. and Mueller-Riemenschneider F. "Patterns of physical activity and sedentary behavior in a representative sample of a multi-ethnic south-east asian population: A cross-sectional study." BMC Public Health 15 (2015): 318. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1668-7 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25884916. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Martins L. C. G., Lopes M. V. O., Diniz C. M. and Guedes N. G. "The factors related to a sedentary lifestyle: A meta-analysis review." J Adv Nurs 77 (2021): 1188–205. doi: 10.1111/jan.14669 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33368524. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Castrillon C. I. M., Beckenkamp P. R., Ferreira M. L., Michell J. A., de Aguiar Mendes V. A., Luscombe G. M., et al. "Are people in the bush really physically active? A systematic review and meta-analysis of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in rural australians populations." J Glob Health 10 (2020): 010410. doi: 10.7189/jogh.10.010410 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32373329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Mugler N., Baurecht H., Lam K., Leitzmann M. and Jochem C. "The effectiveness of interventions to reduce sedentary time in different target groups and settings in germany: Systematic review, meta-analysis and recommendations on interventions." Int J Environ Res Public Health 19 (2022): doi: 10.3390/ijerph191610178 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36011821. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Shrestha N., Kukkonen-Harjula K. T., Verbeek J. H., Ijaz S., Hermans V. and Pedisic Z. "Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work." Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12 (2018): CD010912. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010912.pub5 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30556590. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Akksilp K., Koh J. J. E., Tan V., Tong E. H., Budtarad N., Xueying G., et al. "The physical activity at work (paw) study: A cluster randomised trial of a multicomponent short-break intervention to reduce sitting time and increase physical activity among office workers in thailand." The Lancet Regional Health—Southeast Asia 8 (2023): 100086. doi: 10.1016/j.lansea.2022.100086 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772368222001020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Gonzalez-Gonzalez A. I., Brunn R., Nothacker J., Schwarz C., Nury E., Dinh T. S., et al. "Everyday lives of middle-aged persons with multimorbidity: A mixed methods systematic review." Int J Environ Res Public Health 19 (2021): doi: 10.3390/ijerph19010006 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35010264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Ryan A., Wallace E., O’Hara P. and Smith S. M. "Multimorbidity and functional decline in community-dwelling adults: A systematic review." Health Qual Life Outcomes 13 (2015): 168. doi: 10.1186/s12955-015-0355-9 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26467295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Ricke E., Dijkstra A. and Bakker E. W. "Prognostic factors of adherence to home-based exercise therapy in patients with chronic diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis." Front Sports Act Living 5 (2023): 1035023. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2023.1035023 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37033885. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Barcelo-Soler A., Morillo-Sarto H., Fernandez-Martinez S., Monreal-Bartolome A., Chambel M. J., Gardiner P., et al. "A systematic review of the adherence to home-practice meditation exercises in patients with chronic pain." Int J Environ Res Public Health 20 (2023): doi: 10.3390/ijerph20054438 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36901448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Teh W. L., Abdin E., Asharani P. V., Siva Kumar F. D., Roystonn K., Wang P., et al. "Measuring social desirability bias in a multi-ethnic cohort sample: Its relationship with self-reported physical activity, dietary habits, and factor structure." BMC Public Health 23 (2023): 415. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-15309-3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36859251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Nipun Shrestha

23 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-18854Patterns and Correlates of Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Among Bangkok Residents: A Cross-sectional StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Topothai,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:1. In the background section the third paragraph on demographics of Bangkok could be shortened to two to three sentences.2. In the discussion section you can add what types of jobs are females mostly employed in Thailand, also you can tie in that with lifestyles of females in Thailand (like Proportion of single females, single parents, office workers and educational status).  Also could you discuss what proportion of thai population are office workers or employed in labour intensive jobs, this might have implications for national physical activity policy.3. You have recommended the environmental restructuring interventions like sit-stand desk which have been shown to be effective only in short term in various studies and completely ignored the incidental physical activity, like taking stairs instead of escalators, placing bins and printers further away from desk. Please refer to the publication below for interventions for reducing sedentary behaviour and also please add what can be done to reduce sedentary behaviour in leisure time.https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010912.pub5/fullhttps://bjsm.bmj.com/content/53/19/1206/4. The manuscript should be prof read by proficient English speaker.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 07 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nipun Shrestha, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear editors, thank you for inviting me reviewing this interesting manuscript. My suggestions are: Minor revision needed. Below are my comments:

• Comments 1:

Page 3, Background:

“The prevalence of inadequate physical activity levels is

a matter of concern, affecting approximately 28% of adults (equivalent to 1.4 billion individuals)(3) failing to meet the recommended physical activity levels outlined by the World Health Organization (WHO) (defined as ≥150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week).(4)”

Could you provide clarity on where this survey was conducted, or is this research about global trends?

• Comments 2:

Page 3, Background:

“Furthermore, in 2020 on average Thai individuals spent approximately 14 hours sedentary daily, (9)”

This sentence seems unclear for me, please reconstruct it.

• Comments 3:

Page 3, Background:

“In contrast, Chon Buri, Thailand’s second most populated city, has a population of just 1.5 million. (16)”

This sentence does not add different and useful information and it is recommended to delete it.

• Comments 4:

Page 4, Method, Sample and procedure:

The authors say that this research is about residents of Bangkok. However, it seems difficult to identify which cities were investigated in the 2021 Thai Health Behavior Survey in the Methods section. Please clarify this for now.

• Comments 5:

Page 4, Method, Sample and procedure:

“For the current study, we include data from participants aged between 18 to 80 years to enable comparison with global recommendations on physical activity and sedentary behavior levels for adults.”

Please add a reference to support your statement.

• Comments 6:

Page 5, Method, Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior:

“The GPAQ has undergone validation in the adult population of Thailand, demonstrating an acceptable criterion validity (Spearman's rho = 0.33, p-value <0.01) with accelerometer-based measurements of physical activity.”

Please read this paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26931142/.

Validation is not an appropriate word to describe the relationship between these two measures. It may be better to use “convergent validity” or ‘agreement between measures”.

• Comments 7:

Page 5, Method, Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior:

“Additionally, validation studies conducted among a multi-ethnic population in

Singapore, indicating a moderately correlated (Spearman's rho = 0.39, p-value <0.001) of moderate-tovigorous physical activity and sedentary behavior (Spearman's rho = 0.28, p-value <0.05) with accelerometer-based measurements..”

This sentence will confuse readers who do not have sufficient geographical knowledge. Please elaborate further on the relationship between Thailand and Singapore, e.g. geography, culture, ethnic composition, etc.

• Comments 8:

Page 6, Results, Study Participants:

“Of these, some were excluded based on age (either below 18 years or above 80 years of age, n=1892), for not being present at their homes on the interview dates (n=3,345), or for proving invalid data (n=14), or missing data (n=150).”

Of these is too colloquial and could be used e.g. "according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria". It is suggested that this sentence be reorganised.

• Comments 9:

Page 15, Figure 1:

Missing unit of measurement in the age column; BMI lacks full spelling; The proportion of the sample in the low active/low sedentary group should be 3.0%, keeping one decimal place as in the other groups.

• Comments 10:

Page Figure 2:

The information within this figure is an exact duplicate of that in Table 1 and is recommended to be deleted.

• Comments 11:

Page 7, Discussion:

“which was the most health-enhancing combination of sufficient physical activity and low sedentary behavior”

Please provide evidence to support this statement.

• Comments 12:

Page 7, Discussion:

“It would be helpful to prioritize efforts towards mobilizing the large proportion of the population who are currently classified as being highly active/highly sedentary, to be less sedentary.”

Why this population? Are there studies that compare the risks of different combinations and health-related outcomes? Do group with low physical activity and high sedentary behaviour also need to be prioritised for intervention?

• Comments 13:

Page 8, Discussion:

“This finding was consistent with the previous Thai national survey in 2015

(25) and a study conducted on the multi-ethnic Asian population in Singapore,

(47).”

Attention needs to be paid to in-text citations and punctuation, and it is recommended that the text be critically edited.

• Comments 14:

Page 9, Discussion:

“Firstly, the reliance on self-reported data using the GPAQ introduced the potential for memory bias. Participants may have difficulty accurately recalling their physical activity and sedentary behavior over the previous seven days, leading to inaccuracies in the reported prevalence rates.”

This is indeed a limitation of self-reported measurements, but are accelerometer measurements subject to recall bias?

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting cross-sectional study determining patterns and correlates of physical activity and sedentary behaviour among individuals in Bangkok. The study was well-written and coherent. However, I suggest following recommendations in order to improve the manuscript.

Introduction:

While there have been nationally representative studies from Thailand conducted previously on the topic, the need for this study specifically focusing Bangkok is not yet clear. Although authors have attempted to explain it, the reason why it is important to study PA and SB in individuals from Bangkok is important should be explained better.

Methods:

Page 4: What was the rationale for categorising individual income based on 12000 Baht? Please provide a reference.

Results:

Page 6: The numbers don’t add to 8,538. Please check and correct.

Discussion:

Page 7: While I agree that financial incentives have the potential to influence individual behaviour, it might be argued that it is not a cost-effective approach. Could you suggest better alternatives such as changes to the workstations (e.g., sit-to-stand desks) that are cost-efficient? Use of stairs instead of escalators?

Page 8: Why could covid-19 changes have impacted PA and SB in men compared to women?

Tables:

Table 2 need correction: please remove the bullets and format the text in sentence case.

English and grammar:

The use of English was poor at several places and should be significantly improved. I suggest the manuscript be reviewed by a proficient English speaker.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Oct 4;18(10):e0292222. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292222.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


11 Sep 2023

Editor: In the background section the third paragraph on demographics of Bangkok could be shortened to two to three sentences.

Thanks for the comment. We’ve shortened the third paragraph and merged it with the fourth paragraph (page 4).

“Bangkok is the capital and most populous city of Thailand. Rapid and significant urbanization of the city has potentially had negative implications for physical activity, sedentary behavior [15], and the prevalence of NCDs [16]. Bangkok is one of the fastest growing urban centers in Southeast Asia. In 1950, the city was inhabited by just 1.4 million people [17]. As of 2023, the population has surpassed 11 million people [17], which accounts for approximately 16% of the country’s population [18]. In Thailand, existing epidemiological investigations of physical activity and sedentary behavior have predominantly been conducted at the national level [19-22]. Limited studies have focused specifically on Bangkok, and those that are available have concentrated on specific aspects of physical activity, such as exercise or transport behavior, rather than total physical activity and sedentary behavior [23-27]. Bangkok's urbanization is part of a global trend. Understanding how urbanization influences physical activity and sedentary behavior in Bangkok can provide insights into similar trends in other urban centers worldwide, and will be particularly relevant for cities in other countries that are experiencing rapid urbanization.”

Editor: In the discussion section you can add what types of jobs are females mostly employed in Thailand, also you can tie in that with lifestyles of females in Thailand (like Proportion of single females, single parents, office workers and educational status).

We’ve provided statistics on female occupations (page 15).

“Employment of women in the formal industrial section in Bangkok [42] has increased by 0.8 million females, representing around 12% growth over the past seven years. The majority of these women are working in the manufacturing, or in wholesale and retail trade (26.4% and 16.7%, respectively) [43].”

There is a qualitative study on Thai female lifestyle, but it did not demonstrate these proportions.

Editor: Also could you discuss what proportion of thai population are office workers or employed in labour intensive jobs, this might have implications for national physical activity policy.

We’ve provided information on the proportion of office-based and labor-intensive occupations (page 16).

“The proportion of labor-intensive occupations dropped substantially from 2015 to 2021 (from 23.8 to 19.5, respectively). Similarly, the proportion of office-based occupations increased substantially during the same period (from 14.2 to 18.0 million) [43].

Editor: You have recommended the environmental restructuring interventions like sit-stand desk which have been shown to be effective only in short term in various studies and completely ignored the incidental physical activity, like taking stairs instead of escalators, placing bins and printers further away from desk. Please refer to the publication below for interventions for reducing sedentary behaviour and also please add what can be done to reduce sedentary behaviour in leisure time.

We’ve provided examples of sedentary-breaking interventions according to your suggested references in the 2nd paragraph of the discussion (pages 15-16).

“…Interventions could be developed to replace sedentary behavior with light-to-moderate-intensity movement several times a day. Examples include using screen time control measures such as electronic lock-out systems to television, computer or smartphone [34]…”

We’ve provided examples of sedentary-breaking interventions according to your suggested references in the 4th paragraph of the discussion (pages 17-18).

“…Examples include using sit-stand desks, treadmill desks, or cycling desks combined with information, counseling, and short break or walking strategies [52]. Implementing point-of-choice prompting software along with educational initiatives may also prove effective [52]…”

Editor: The manuscript should be prof read by proficient English speaker.

The manuscript has been proofread and revised by a proficient English speaker.

Reviewer #1: Page 3, Background:

“The prevalence of inadequate physical activity levels is a matter of concern, affecting approximately 28% of adults (equivalent to 1.4 billion individuals)(3) failing to meet the recommended physical activity levels outlined by the World Health Organization (WHO) (defined as ≥150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week).(4)”

Could you provide clarity on where this survey was conducted, or is this research about global trends?

Thanks for the comment. We’ve provided information on the setting of the study (page 3).

“…A pooled analysis of population-based surveys in 168 countries from nine regions around the world revealed that approximately 28% of adults aged 18 years and older [3] failed to meet the recommended physical activity levels outlined by...”

Reviewer #1: Page 3, Background:

“Furthermore, in 2020 on average Thai individuals spent approximately 14 hours sedentary daily, (9)”

This sentence seems unclear for me, please reconstruct it.

We’ve reconstructed the sentence by cutting the 2020 survey and keeping the 2021 survey (pages 3-4).

“…Furthermore, a national survey conducted in 2021 revealed that 75.8% of Thai individuals were classified as highly sedentary, defined as ≥7 hours per day [14].”

Reviewer #1: Page 3, Background:

“In contrast, Chon Buri, Thailand’s second most populated city, has a population of just 1.5 million. (16)”

This sentence does not add different and useful information and it is recommended to delete it.

We’ve deleted the sentence and reconstructed the paragraph as also suggested by the Editor.

Reviewer #1: Page 4, Method, Sample and procedure:

The authors say that this research is about residents of Bangkok. However, it seems difficult to identify which cities were investigated in the 2021 Thai Health Behavior Survey in the Methods section. Please clarify this for now.

We’ve provided additional information for clarity (page 5).

“…The NSO used random sampling to identify households for participation in computer-assisted personal interviews, which were stratified to ensure national coverage and representation at the provincial level (covering all 77 provinces, including Bangkok)…”

Reviewer #1: Page 4, Method, Sample and procedure:

“For the current study, we include data from participants aged between 18 to 80 years to enable comparison with global recommendations on physical activity and sedentary behavior levels for adults.”

Please add a reference to support your statement.

Thanks for the comment. We’ve added references (page 6).

“For the current study, we included data from participants aged between 18 and 80 years, which was consistent with the age range recommended for assessing physical activity and sedentary behavior levels in adults and the elderly [4], and addressed data accuracy concerns among the very elderly [28].”

Reviewer #1: Page 5, Method, Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior:

“The GPAQ has undergone validation in the adult population of Thailand, demonstrating an acceptable criterion validity (Spearman's rho = 0.33, p-value <0.01) with accelerometer-based measurements of physical activity.”

Please read this paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26931142/. Validation is not an appropriate word to describe the relationship between these two measures. It may be better to use “convergent validity” or ‘agreement between measures”.

Page 5, Method, Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior:

“Additionally, validation studies conducted among a multi-ethnic population in Singapore, indicating a moderately correlated (Spearman's rho = 0.39, p-value <0.001) of moderate-tovigorous physical activity and sedentary behavior (Spearman's rho = 0.28, p-value <0.05) with accelerometer-based measurements..”

This sentence will confuse readers who do not have sufficient geographical knowledge. Please elaborate further on the relationship between Thailand and Singapore, e.g. geography, culture, ethnic composition, etc.

Thanks for these two comments. We’ve agreed on using ‘convergent validity’. We’ve removed validity and reliability studies in Singapore and kept a study in Thailand. We’ve revised the text for clarity as follows (pages 7-8).

“The GPAQ has demonstrated acceptable convergent validity (Spearman's rho = 0.33, p-value <0.01) with accelerometer-based measurements of physical activity and good seven-day test-retest reliability (Spearman's rho = 0.77, p-value <0.01) in the adult and older adult population of Thailand [31].”

Reviewer #1: Page 6, Results, Study Participants:

“Of these, some were excluded based on age (either below 18 years or above 80 years of age, n=1892), for not being present at their homes on the interview dates (n=3,345), or for proving invalid data (n=14), or missing data (n=150).”

Of these is too colloquial and could be used e.g. "according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria". It is suggested that this sentence be reorganised.

Thanks for the comment. We’ve revised the texts as suggested (page 9).

“According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, some participants were excluded based on age (either below 18 years or above 80 years of age, n=1,892), for not being present at their homes on the interview dates (n=3,345), or for proving invalid data (n=14).”

Page 15, Figure 1:

Reviewer #1: Missing unit of measurement in the age column; BMI lacks full spelling; The proportion of the sample in the low active/low sedentary group should be 3.0%, keeping one decimal place as in the other groups.

Thanks for the comment. You mean Table 1? We’ve revised Table 1 (and 2) as suggested.

Age (years).

Body mass index (BMI).

Low active/low sedentary, n=94 (3.0%).

Reviewer #1: Page Figure 2:

The information within this figure is an exact duplicate of that in Table 1 and is recommended to be deleted.

Thanks for the comment. We’ve removed Fig 2.

Reviewer #1: Page 7, Discussion:

“which was the most health-enhancing combination of sufficient physical activity and low sedentary behavior”

Please provide evidence to support this statement.

Thanks for the comment. We’ve removed this clause from paragraph 1 to paragraph 2 of the discussion and provided the reference (page 15).

“The findings suggested that nearly one-fifth (17.9%) of Bangkok residents may achieve the recommended level of physical activity with low sedentary behavior, which represented the most health-enhancing combination [26].”

Bakrania, K., C. L. Edwardson, D. H. Bodicoat, D. W. Esliger, J. M. Gill, A. Kazi, L. Velayudhan, A. J. Sinclair, N. Sattar, S. J. Biddle, et al. "Associations of mutually exclusive categories of physical activity and sedentary time with markers of cardiometabolic health in english adults: A cross-sectional analysis of the health survey for england." BMC Public Health 16 (2016): 25. 10.1186/s12889-016-2694-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26753523.

Reviewer #1: Comments 12: Page 7, Discussion:

“It would be helpful to prioritize efforts towards mobilizing the large proportion of the population who are currently classified as being highly active/highly sedentary, to be less sedentary.”

Why this population? Are there studies that compare the risks of different combinations and health-related outcomes? Do group with low physical activity and high sedentary behaviour also need to be prioritised for intervention?

Thanks for the comment.

Our approach prioritizes the highly sedentary group before addressing the low physical activity group. The rationale behind this is that while the ease or difficulty of breaking sedentary behavior versus increasing physical activity depends on individual preferences, lifestyles, and starting points, some individuals may find it easier to begin with small changes in sedentary behavior and gradually progress towards increased physical activity, which typically demands more significant physical effort, time commitment, and motivation.

The study by Bakrania et al. provided in the above comment demonstrated the risks of different combinations and health-related outcomes.

It is true that the group with low physical activity and high sedentary behavior also needs to be prioritized for intervention.

We’ve revised the texts to accommodate comments as follows (page 15).

“…Therefore, it would be beneficial to prioritize efforts towards mobilizing the large proportion of the population who are currently classified as being highly active/highly sedentary or low active/highly sedentary, to reduce their sedentary time, aligning with the WHO concept of ‘every move counts’ [4]. This can serve as an initial step in promoting physical activity during subsequent phases…”

Reviewer #1: Page 8, Discussion:

“This finding was consistent with the previous Thai national survey in 2015 (25) and a study conducted on the multi-ethnic Asian population in Singapore, (47).”

Attention needs to be paid to in-text citations and punctuation, and it is recommended that the text be critically edited.

Thanks for the comment. We’ve carefully checked the manuscript for typos.

For this sentence, it has been edited.

“This finding was consistent with the previous Thai national survey in 2015 [19] and a study conducted on the multi-ethnic Asian population in Singapore [47].”

Reviewer #1: Page 9, Discussion:

“Firstly, the reliance on self-reported data using the GPAQ introduced the potential for memory bias. Participants may have difficulty accurately recalling their physical activity and sedentary behavior over the previous seven days, leading to inaccuracies in the reported prevalence rates.”

This is indeed a limitation of self-reported measurements, but are accelerometer measurements subject to recall bias?

Thanks for the comment. We understand that accelerometer measurements are not subject to recall bias in the same way that self-reported data can be. Recall bias occurs when individuals have difficulty accurately recalling past events or behaviors from memory, which can lead to inaccuracies in self-reported data. Accelerometer measurements, on the other hand, do not rely on memory or self-reporting. These devices objectively measure physical activity and sedentary behavior by detecting movement and can provide continuous, real-time data.

Reviewer #2:

Introduction: While there have been nationally representative studies from Thailand conducted previously on the topic, the need for this study specifically focusing Bangkok is not yet clear. Although authors have attempted to explain it, the reason why it is important to study PA and SB in individuals from Bangkok is important should be explained better.

Thanks for the comment. We’ve revised the introduction, particularly the 3rd and 4th paragraphs to provide justification for focusing Bangkok (page 4). This also includes the comments from Editor and Reviewer 1.

“Bangkok, the capital and most populous city of Thailand, has experienced significant urbanization, potentially leading to negative implications for physical activity [15], and an increased prevalence of NCDs among its residents [16]. It is among the rapidly growing urban centers in Southeast Asia, with a population surpassing 11 million as of 2023 [17], accounting for approximately 16% of the country’s population [18]. The population growth in Bangkok has been remarkable; in 1950, the city was inhabited by a mere 1.4 million people [17]. However, existing epidemiological investigations of physical activity and sedentary behavior have predominantly been conducted at the national level [19-22]. Limited studies have specifically focused on residents of Bangkok, and those available have tended to concentrate on specific aspects of physical activity, such as exercise or transport behavior, rather than encompassing overall physical activity and sedentary behavior [23, 24]. Bangkok's urbanization is part of a global trend. Understanding how urbanization influences physical activity and sedentary behavior in Bangkok can provide insights into similar trends in other urban centers worldwide, particularly relevant for cities in developing countries that are experiencing rapid urbanization.”

We’ve also revised the last paragraph of the introduction (page 5).

“Therefore, this study aims to …. Such findings are critical for informing policy initiatives that promote healthier lifestyles. These insights can help inform and improve public health strategies and policies in urban areas, fostering a more comprehensive and comparative understanding of physical activity and sedentary behavior in urban settings.”

Reviewer #2: Methods: Page 4:

What was the rationale for categorising individual income based on 12000 Baht? Please provide a reference.

Thanks for the comment. The rationale for categorizing individual income based on 12000 Baht is derived from the median.

Reviewer #2: Results: Page 6:

The numbers don’t add to 8,538. Please check and correct.

Thanks for the comment. We’ve checked and revised both the text and Fig 1.

8,538 = 1,892 + 3,345 + 14 + 150 + 3,137.

“There were 8,538 Bangkok residents who were initially screened for this study. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, some participants were excluded based on age (either below 18 years or above 80 years of age, n=1,892), for not being present at their homes on the interview dates (n=3,345), for proving invalid data (n=14), or incomplete sociodemographic data (n=150). The final sample size for analysis consisted of 3,137 participants residing in Bangkok (Fig 1).”

Reviewer #2: Discussion: Page 7:

While I agree that financial incentives have the potential to influence individual behaviour, it might be argued that it is not a cost-effective approach. Could you suggest better alternatives such as changes to the workstations (e.g., sit-to-stand desks) that are cost-efficient? Use of stairs instead of escalators?

Thanks for the comment. This is in line with the Editor and Reviewer 1’s comments. We’ve provided examples of sedentary-breaking interventions in the 2nd paragraph of the discussion (pages 15-16).

“…Interventions could be developed to replace sedentary behavior with light-to-moderate-intensity movement several times a day. Examples include using screen time control measures such as electronic lock-out systems to television, computer or smartphone [34]…”

We’ve also provided examples of sedentary-breaking interventions in the 4th paragraph of the discussion (pages 17-18).

“…Examples include using sit-stand desks, treadmill desks, or cycling desks combined with information, counseling, and short break or walking strategies [52]. Implementing point-of-choice prompting software along with educational initiatives may also prove effective [52]…”

Reviewer #2: Discussion: Page 8:

Why could covid-19 changes have impacted PA and SB in men compared to women?

Thanks for the comment. We were unable to find evidence to answer the question of why COVID-19 changes have impacted physical activity and sedentary behavior differently in men compared to women. Our assumption is that it is related to the decrease in mobility due to social distancing measures. Therefore, we have added this information to the third paragraph on page 17 and removed the clause about men at the end of this paragraph.

“…These measures may have the potential to influence individuals’ physical mobility, with an 11.0% decrease in trips from 9,580 million in 2020 to 8,522 million in 2021 [42]. This could result in a decrease in physical activity and an increase in sedentary behavior [13, 43]”

Reviewer #2: Tables:

Table 2 need correction: please remove the bullets and format the text in sentence case.

Thanks for the comment. We’ve revised Table 1.

Reviewer #2: English and grammar:

The use of English was poor at several places and should be significantly improved. I suggest the manuscript be reviewed by a proficient English speaker.

Thanks for the comment. The manuscript has been proofread and revised by a proficient English speaker as also suggested by the Editor and Reviewer 1.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Nipun Shrestha

18 Sep 2023

Patterns and correlates of physical activity and sedentary behavior among Bangkok residents: A cross-sectional study

PONE-D-23-18854R1

Dear Dr. Topothai,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Nipun Shrestha, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have satisfactorily addressed my research concerns. Congratulations to the authors' work, which may be helpful to understand the PA pattern in the low and middle income country. Good work.

Reviewer #2: I am thankful to the authors for revising the manuscript. I can now see that the manuscript has been adequately revised and addresses my comments.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Nipun Shrestha

25 Sep 2023

PONE-D-23-18854R1

Patterns and correlates of physical activity and sedentary behavior among Bangkok residents: A cross-sectional study

Dear Dr. Topothai:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Nipun Shrestha

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE


Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES