Skip to main content
. 2022 Apr 15;19:46. doi: 10.1186/s12966-022-01284-2

Table 1.

Descriptive characteristics at baseline for HCHS/SOL cohort (2008–2017)

N = 6634
% or mean 95% CI
Age (years), mean 38.4 (37.8,39.1)
Center, %
 Bronx 27.7 (24.6,30.8)
 Chicago 15.3 (13.1,17.5)
 Miami 30.0 (25.9,34.2)
 San Diego 27.0 (23.4,30.6)
Hispanic/Latino heritage, %
 Central American 7.8 (6.2,9.3)
 Cuban 20.4 (17.2,23.5)
 Dominican 9.5 (8.0,11.0)
 Mexican 38.4 (35.0,41.8)
 Puerto Rican 14.7 (12.9,16.6)
 South American 4.9 (4.1,5.7)
 Multi/Other 4.3 (3.2,5.3)
Female, % 51.6 (49.7,53.4)
Education, %
  < high school/no GED 29.0 (27.0,31.0)
 high school or GED 28.0 (26.2,29.9)
  > high school 43.0 (40.6,45.3)
Married/partner, % 48.3 (46.0,50.6)
Employed, % 55.4 (53.4,57.4)
Reported any occupational physical activitya, % 53.2 (50.0, 56.4)
Born in continental US, % 24.1 (22.0,26.3)
BMI (kg/m2), mean 28.9 (28.7,29.2)
HOMA IR, mean 2.9 (2.8,3.0)
Have prediabetes, % 41.0 (39.1,42.9)
General health, %
 Excellent/very good 32.4 (30.5,34.4)
 Good 46.5 (44.5,48.4)
 Fair/poor 21.1 (19.5,22.7)
Have health/mobility limitation, % 10.2 (8.9,11.5)
Cigarette pack years, mean 4.0 (3.6,4.4)
Drinks per week, mean 2.9 (2.6,3.2)
Energy intake (kcal/day), mean 2023 (1999,2047)
Alternative Healthy Eating Index, mean 47.1 (46.7,47.5)
Average wear time (hours), mean 15.9 (15.7,16.0)
Daily steps, mean 8164 (7983,8344)
Peak 30 cadence (steps/min), mean 77.2 (76.2,78.2)
Proportion of wear at different cadence, mean
 0 steps/min 69.0 (68.5,69.5)
 1- < 40 steps/min 23.9 (23.5,24.3)
 40–99 steps/min 5.8 (5.6,6.0)
  > 100 steps/min 1.3 (1.2,1.3)
Minutes per day spent at different cadence, mean
  > 40 steps/min 66.4 (64.4,68.3)
  > 70 steps/min 27.3 (26.2,28.4)
  > 100 steps/min 12.1 (11.4,12.8)
Minutes per day spent in bouts at different cadence, mean
  > 40 steps/min 24.3 (22.9,25.7)
  > 70 steps/min 10.2 (9.5,11.0)
  > 100 steps/min 4.8 (4.4,5.2)
Percent of steps > 100 steps/min, mean 13.5 (12.9, 14.2)

Abbreviations BMI body mass index, HOMA IR homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance

aAmong participants who were employed (n = 3799)