Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jan 28.
Published in final edited form as: Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015 Oct;47(10):2129–2139. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000661

Table 2.

Additional data, other than accelerometry data, required (most essential listed first)

Additional data Proportion of participants who deemed this information essential (%; n=16) When not deemed essential a
Scientific priority (median; 1=low; 5=high) Feasibility of harmonization (median; 1=low; 5=high)
Basic socio-demographic data such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, country, and socio-economic status (i.e. income, education, employment status) 94% / /
Anthropometric data (i.e. weight, height, waist circumference) 88% 4 (n=1) 4 (n=1)
Health status data (i.e. diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer) 75% 4 (n=1) 4 (n=1)
Occupational classification data (i.e. type of occupation) 63% 3.5 (n=2) 4 (n=1)
Death registry information/cause of death data 50% 3.5 (n=2) 2 (n=2)
Cardio-metabolic biomarker data (i.e. blood biomarkers, blood pressure) 44% 4 (n=5) 3.5 (n=4)
Data on function (i.e. physical, cognitive, fitness) 31% 4 (n=4) 2.5 (n=4)
Built environment / Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data 19% 4 (n=7) 2 (n=7)
Biological tissue sample data (other than blood samples) 6% 3 (n=8) 2 (n=7)
a

Questions on scientific priority and feasibility of harmonization were only asked if the information was deemed non-essential. These latter two questions were not compulsory: the lower n’s for some responses indicate the degree of missing data.