Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: How active are women who play bingo: A cross -sectional study from the Well!Bingo  
project  
 
Version: 0 Date: 29 Nov 2016  
 
Reviewer: Britni Belcher  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
- This manuscript employed a self -report and objective measure to describe physical 
activity and sedentary time in low socioeconomic Scottish women who regularly attend ed 
bingo. The authors stated the goal was to use this data for intervention development in the 
target population. Not surprisingly, the findings indicated that physically active time was 
over-reported via questionnaire compared to accelerometer data. In ad dition, older 
women were more sedentary and less physically active than younger women.  
 
 
 
- The manuscript was well -written, however the data analysis was somewhat simple (only 
providing cross -sectional descriptive statistics), and prior research has already  determined 
that these two methods of assessing physical activity and sedentary behavior do not often 
correspond. While I agree that it's important to develop tailored interventions for this 
population, this was not expanded upon on the Discussion section and it is unclear what 
this analysis adds to the literature.  
 
 
 
- Were the self -report questionnaires and accelerometer data collected over the same 
week? If so, it seems that the authors may be missing out on a unique opportunity to use 
the self -report ques tionnaire data to provide information on the types of physically active 
and sedentary behaviors that were being performed as captured by the accelerometers. 
This could be important because it could help target specific activities that could be 
encouraged ( e.g. walking) or discouraged (e.g. time spent watching TV). This seems 
important for intervention development, which the authors state is the overall goal of the 
project. Suggest adding some statistics on concordance between self -reported activities 
and ac celeration -measured time spent in each activity category.  
 
 
 
- Were there differences in the self -report and accelerometer -measured activity levels by 
health status? Was one measure more strongly associated with health status? This could 
be added to the analy sis. 
 
- What activities accounted for older women spending more time sedentary and less time 
physically active than younger women? They have time diaries, so it seems like they 
could get that information to possibly target specific types of activities to li mit 
throughout the day, or to replace with light or moderate PA.  
 
 
 
- Tables 1 and 2: there are different sample sizes for each of the items. Was this due to 
women not completing the questionnaire, or that they didn't report certain activities (e.g. 
'Time spe nt sitting on a weekday' has an n=90 but 'Meeting 150 mins PA guidelines' has 
an n=139.  
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments t o the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review ? 
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manus cript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
 
 
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, fu nding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to al l of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I no competing interests  
  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my n ame will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made availa ble under a n Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal