Factors associated with changes in the objectively measured physical activity among Japanese adults: A longitudinal and dynamic panel data analysis

Daiki Watanabe; Haruka Murakami; Yuko Gando; Ryoko Kawakami; Kumpei Tanisawa; Harumi Ohno; Kana Konishi; Azusa Sasaki; Akie Morishita; Nobuyuki Miyatake; Motohiko Miyachi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0280927

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 7, 2022
23 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Hsin-Yen Yen, Editor PONE-D-22-03855Factors associated with changes in the objectively measured physical activity among Japanese adults: A longitudinal and dynamic panel data analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Miyachi, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 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, Hsin-Yen Yen 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 indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf 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: Yes ****** 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: This longitudinal study looks at changes in objectively measured physical activity (LPA, MVPA, TEE, PAL, steps per day) over time among Japanese adults, as well as factors that are associated with those changes. The exploration of changes in objective measures of physical activity within the same individuals over time is a key strength of this study, as most studies rely on self-reported measures of physical activity and/or cross-sectional data collection. Major comments • Given the gender differences in physical activity levels, trajectories (particularly for LPA), and distributions of predictor variables/covariates that were included in the models, it surprised me that the models exploring the factors associated with changes in physical activity were not conducted separately for men and women. Is it possible to stratify the models by gender? • ‘Inactive time’ here is the combination of nonwear time (including sleep) and sedentary time. This is problematic as these are quite different constructs, and it makes it difficult to discern whether changes in inactive time reflect changes in sedentary time, sleep, nonwear, or all three. If possible, sedentary time should be modeled as an outcome on its own. • I’m not sure I understand exactly what insights the different groups in the latent class growth models are meant to provide, and I particularly do not understand how the interpretation of the lack of impact of the counseling on MVPA (lines 238-241) relates to FigureS2C. Could the authors please elaborate? Minor comments • Could you please clarify what the minimum wear criteria were for the accelerometer data? Lines 129-131 imply that at least 7 days of complete wear (≥6 hours) were required but it isn’t quite clear. Additionally, did any participants who wore the accelerometer fail to meet the minimum wear criteria? • Please add a comment regarding how many valid days of accelerometer data participants provided at each time point. The range between how many days participants were asked to wear it (28) and the minimum wear criteria (presumably 7) is quite large so it would be useful to know how many days of wear on average the data are drawn from. • Please clarify the unit of measurement of alcohol intake (1% energy) and how it was derived to help with the interpretation of the regression coefficient. • The positive association between alcohol intake and MVPA is surprising and interesting but is not addressed in the discussion. Could the authors please comment on this in the discussion? • Some of the predictor variables in the multivariate longitudinal analysis seem possibly strongly correlated with each other (e.g., BMI and waist/hip ratio). Were the models checked for collinearity? Reviewer #2: The findings from the study are very useful for everyone to project what changes occur when an individual ages especially in physical activity. The paper is well-written, and the reading is easy to follow. The emphasis on objectively measured physical activity in Japan measurement and its correlation with other factors that take change during the ageing process. The authors have explained the factors involved and their influence on it statistically. To my understanding, this is an (interesting) seminal work, that can produce interesting results if can be compared with other countries too. ****** 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: Yes: Mahenderan Appukutty ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280927.r001
Revision 1
7 Dec 2022 Author Response Responses to the comments of Reviewer 1 We thank the Reviewer for the constructive comments regarding our paper. We have incorporated changes that reflect the suggestions the editor has graciously provided. We hope that our changes and the responses we provide below satisfactorily address all the issues and concerns that have been raised. Major comments Comment #1 (Results): Given the gender differences in physical activity levels, trajectories (particularly for LPA), and distributions of predictor variables/covariates that were included in the models, it surprised me that the models exploring the factors associated with changes in physical activity were not conducted separately for men and women. Is it possible to stratify the models by gender? Our response #1: Thank you very much for this comment. We agreed with your comments. We have added this information in the Table 2 and 3 and Supplementary Table 5 and Results in accordance to comment, as follows: “These associations such as inactive times, LPA, TEE, PAL, and step counts with covariates were confirmed sex differences.” (page 19, lines 299-300). Comment #2 (Results): Inactive time’ here is the combination of nonwear time (including sleep) and sedentary time. This is problematic as these are quite different constructs, and it makes it difficult to discern whether changes in inactive time reflect changes in sedentary time, sleep, nonwear, or all three. If possible, sedentary time should be modeled as an outcome on its own. Our response #2: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. We agreed with your comments. We have added this information in the Supplementary Table 5 and Results in accordance to comment, as follows: “Both inactive and sedentary times trajectory are associated with higher BMI (Table 2 and Table S5).” (page 19, lines 294-295). Comment #3 (Results): I’m not sure I understand exactly what insights the different groups in the latent class growth models are meant to provide, and I particularly do not understand how the interpretation of the lack of impact of the counseling on MVPA (lines 238-241) relates to FigureS2C. Could the authors please elaborate? Our response #3: Thank you very much for this comment. We have modified this information in the Results in accordance to comment, as follows: “The MVPA trajectory were classified into two groups (Figure S1C and S2C; 1: low MVPA trajectory group and 2: high MVPA trajectory group). Although this cohort study had a brief counseling intervention for physical activity in some populations, the proportion of individuals in the high MVPA trajectory group in the intervention group was similar to that in the non-intervention group (5.1% vs 4.9%). These results suggest that brief counseling intervention did not affect the MVPA trajectory.” (page 15-16, lines 258-263). Minor comments Comment #4 (Methods): Could you please clarify what the minimum wear criteria were for the accelerometer data? Lines 129-131 imply that at least 7 days of complete wear (≥6 hours) were required but it isn’t quite clear. Additionally, did any participants who wore the accelerometer fail to meet the minimum wear criteria? Our response #4: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. We agreed with your comments. We have added this information in the Methods section in accordance to comment, as follows: “The participants were asked to wear a triaxial accelerometer at least more than 10 hours per day for 28 days. The days were considered valid when participants wore the wearable devices for more than 10 hours/day from self-reported wearing time based on activity records by the participant himself/herself [22]. However, the objective wear time obtained by accelerometer does not include acceleration data with an intensity of less than 1.1 METs when a participant is completely still (no signal time). Therefore, the calculated wearing time cannot distinguish between no signal time and non-wearing time. The objective wearing time was defined as 24 hours minus non-wearing and no signal time. In addition, we excluded data with wearing time less than 6 hours per day. Those who exceeded this criterion confirmed self-reported accelerometer wearing time exceeding 10 hours in 24 individuals randomly selected from the study population. Therefore, we ultimately determined a valid days of accelerometer data use from two criteria: self-reported wearing time from activity records, and objective wearing time from the accelerometer. Median valid days of accelerometer data included more than 2 weeks in all in-person testing from 2007 to 2018 (Table S1). To calculate the mean physical activity time, the sum of all physical activities surveyed over at last 7 days (including weekdays and weekends) was divided by the number of adhered days. No participants were excluded by these criteria for accelerometer data because those who had the valid days of accelerometer data for less than 7 days were asked to wear the accelerometer again.” (pages 8-9, lines 125-143). Reference 22. Tudor-Locke C, Camhi SM, Troiano RP. A catalog of rules, variables, and definitions applied to accelerometer data in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003-2006. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9:E113. doi: 10.5888/pcd9.110332. PubMed PMID: 22698174; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3457743. Comment #5 (Methods, Page 5): Please add a comment regarding how many valid days of accelerometer data participants provided at each time point. The range between how many days participants were asked to wear it (28) and the minimum wear criteria (presumably 7) is quite large so it would be useful to know how many days of wear on average the data are drawn from. Our response #5: Thank you very much for this comment. We have modified this information in the Supplementary Table 1 and Methods in accordance to comment, as follows: “Median valid days of accelerometer data included more than 2 weeks in all in-person testing from 2007 to 2018 (Table S1). To calculate the mean physical activity time, the sum of all physical activities surveyed over at last 7 days (including weekdays and weekends) was divided by the number of adhered days. No participants were excluded by these criteria for accelerometer data because those who had the valid days of accelerometer data for less than 7 days were asked to wear the accelerometer again.” (page 9, lines 138-143). Comment #6 (Methods, Page 6, lines 86): Please clarify the unit of measurement of alcohol intake (1% energy) and how it was derived to help with the interpretation of the regression coefficient. Our response #6: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. We have added this information in the Methods section in accordance to comment, as follows: “Alcohol intake was estimated from the consumption frequency and portion size of each alcohol beverage using a program developed based on the Standard Tables of Food Composition in Japan. Alcohol intake (%) was calculated by dividing energy intake from alcohol by total energy intake and multiplying by 100.” (page 10, lines 161-164). Comment #7 (Methods, Page 7): The positive association between alcohol intake and MVPA is surprising and interesting but is not addressed in the discussion. Could the authors please comment on this in the discussion? Our response #7: Thank you very much for this comment. We agreed with your comments. We have added this information in the Discussion section in accordance to comment, as follows: “A previous cross-sectional study has reported that weekly alcohol consumption was associated with a higher level of physical activity among young, middle-aged, and older adults [45]. The detailed mechanisms and causal relationships must be clarified with further intervention and basic studies.” (pages 22-23, lines 365-368) Reference 45. Werneck AO, Oyeyemi AL, Szwarcwald CL, Silva DR. Association between physical activity and alcohol consumption: sociodemographic and behavioral patterns in Brazilian adults. J Public Health (Oxf). 2019;41(4):781-7. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdy202. PubMed PMID: 30445471. Comment #8 (Methods, Page 7): Some of the predictor variables in the multivariate longitudinal analysis seem possibly strongly correlated with each other (e.g., BMI and waist/hip ratio). Were the models checked for collinearity? Our response #8: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. We agreed with your comments. We have added this information in the Supplementary Table 2 and Methods section in accordance to comment, as follows: “The variance inflation factor (VIF) was used to avoid multicollinearity in the multivariate regression model and all covariates were maintained VIF ≤5 (Table S2).” (page 13, lines 220-222) Responses to the comments of Reviewer 2 We thank the Reviewer for the constructive comments regarding our paper. We have incorporated changes that reflect the suggestions the editor has graciously provided. We hope that our changes and the responses we provide below satisfactorily address all the issues and concerns that have been raised. Comment #1 (Overall): The findings from the study are very useful for everyone to project what changes occur when an individual ages especially in physical activity. The paper is well-written, and the reading is easy to follow. The emphasis on objectively measured physical activity in Japan measurement and its correlation with other factors that take change during the ageing process. The authors have explained the factors involved and their influence on it statistically. To my understanding, this is an (interesting) seminal work, that can produce interesting results if can be compared with other countries too. Our response #1: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. We agreed with your comments. Unfortunately, any study similar to our study on trajectory analysis of physical activity using accelerometer has not yet been conducted in other countries. It is therefore interesting to compare our Japanese findings with other countries, but at present it is not possible. Again, thank you for reviewing for our manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280927.r002
12 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Hsin-Yen Yen, Editor Factors associated with changes in the objectively measured physical activity among Japanese adults: A longitudinal and dynamic panel data analysis PONE-D-22-03855R1 Dear Dr. Miyachi, 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, Hsin-Yen Yen Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280927.r003
Formally Accepted
7 Feb 2023 Acceptance Letter - Hsin-Yen Yen, Editor PONE-D-22-03855R1 Factors associated with changes in the objectively measured physical activity among Japanese adults: A longitudinal and dynamic panel data analysis Dear Dr. Miyachi: 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. Hsin-Yen Yen Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280927.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .