Occupational Sedentary Behaviour Research Articles

Cross-sectional Examination of Long-term Access to Sit-Stand Desks in a Professional Office Setting.

Prolonged sedentary behavior is an independent risk factor for many negative health outcomes. Although many employers have begun introducing sit-stand desks as means of reducing employee's occupational sitting time, few studies have examined the impact of prolonged access to such desks on sitting/standing time or cardiometabolic outcomes. The present study compared occupational sedentary/physical activity behaviors and cardiometabolic biomarkers among employees with long-term access to traditional sitting and sit-stand desks. This study used a naturalistic, cross-sectional study design. Occupational sedentary and physical activity behaviors and cardiometabolic health outcomes were collected in a controlled laboratory between February and June 2014. Data were analyzed in September 2014. Adults working in full-time sedentary desk jobs who reported having either a sit-stand desk (n=31) or standard sitting desk (n=38) for a minimum of 6 months were recruited. Employees with sit-stand desks sat less (p=0.02) and stood more at work (p=0.01) compared with employees with sitting desks. Significant inverse correlations were observed between several occupational physical activity outcomes (walking time, steps at work) and cardiometabolic risk factors (systolic blood pressure, weight, lean mass, BMI) over the entire sample. Employees with long-term access to sit-stand desks sat less and stood more compared with employees with sitting desks. These findings hold public health significance, as sit-stand desks represent a potentially sustainable approach for reducing sedentary behavior among the large, growing number of sedentary workers at increased risk for sedentariness-related pathologies.

The content and structure of electronic health records in physiotherapy

Participants wore an accelerometer for 7 days and completed the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire before the intervention period and again following the 12 week intervention.Accelerometer determined sedentary time, sustained sedentary time, breaks in sedentary time, light activity and MVPA on work days and during work hours was analysed using repeated measures t-tests to evaluate the overall effect of any intervention across all participants. Linear regression models were used to test effects between the organisations and between intervention groups. McNemar’s test was used to assess changes inmusculoskeletal pain following the intervention period. Results: For all participants, therewas a significant reduction in sedentary time on work days (−1.6%, p= 0.006) and during work hours (−1.7%, p= 0.014) and a concurrent significant increase in light activity during work hours (1.5%, p= 0.036) and MVPA on work days (0.6%, p= 0.012). In addition, there was a significant increase in the number of breaks/sedentary hour work days (0.64, p= 0.005) and during work hours (0.72, p= 0.015). Further, following the intervention period, there was no significant difference in the proportion of participants reporting musculoskeletal pain in the different body regions nor was there a significant difference in the reported number of body regions experiencing musculoskeletal pain. Conclusion(s):Participatoryworkplace interventions that modify work practice to reduce occupational sedentary behaviour can reduce sedentary time, increase the frequency of breaks in sedentary time and improve light intensity activity andMVPA of office workers. Small changes in occupational sedentary time did not impact on musculoskeletal symptoms of office workers. Implications: Currently, it is still inconclusive whether changes in occupational sedentary behaviour can change musculoskeletal symptoms of office workers. Further research is needed to establish dose response relationships between occupational sedentary behaviour and various health outcomes, including work-related musculoskeletal symptoms.

Physical Activity and Sedentary Patterns of Emergency Department Nurses

Quantification of physical activity and sedentary behavior in the free-living environment is important when seeking to understand potential physiological consequences and/or benefits. Objective monitors allow researchers to evaluate physical activity and sedentary behavior in the free-living environment using a variety of modalities. PURPOSE: To compare occupational (OPA) and non-occupational (NOPA) physical activity and sedentary behavior among Emergency Department (ED) nurses using the StewWatch-3 (SW), Omron HJ-303 (O), NL-2000 (NL), and ActivPal (AP). METHODS: Thirteen ED nurses (10 women) consented to participate in the study and wore the devices for seven days. Paired-samples t-tests were used to determine differences between occupational and non-occupational steps per day, standing time, stepping time, and time spent sitting/lying down. RESULTS: ED nurses averaged 7,713-16,032 and 7,181-9,119 steps per day for OPA and NOPA, respectively. The SW, NL, and AP counted significantly more steps during occupational days (P<0.05). The AP counted significantly more time standing and time spent stepping during occupational days (P<0.05). In addition, the AP counted significantly less time spent while sitting/lying down during occupational days (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: During occupational days ED nurses walk more and spend significantly less time sitting/lying down. Due to technological advancements, many jobs are becoming more sedentary. Because of their occupational physical activity demands, ED nurses may be a population of interest for researchers interested in the physiological benefits of physical activity and the physiological consequences of sedentary behavior.

Leisure-Time Physical Activity Does not Attenuate the Association Between Occupational Sedentary Behavior and Obesity: Results From Alberta's Tomorrow Project.

Sedentary behavior has been proposed as a risk factor for obesity that is distinct from physical inactivity. This study aimed to examine the association between occupational sedentary behavior and obesity, and to determine if this association is independent of leisure-time physical activity (LTPA). Fully employed participants enrolled between 2001 and 2008 to Alberta's Tomorrow Project, a prospective cohort study in Alberta, Canada, were studied (n = 12,409). Associations between occupational sedentary behavior and waist circumference (WC), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and body mass index (BMI) were examined using multiple binary and multinomial logistic regressions. In men, a positive association was observed between daily occupational sedentary hours and WC, WHR, BMI, and with high risk profiles that incorporated both BMI and WC (P < .01). Controlling for vigorous-intensity LTPA in all models strengthened associations between sedentary behavior and measures of obesity. In contrast, inverse associations were observed for occupational sedentary hours and WHR for women (P < .05). In fully employed men, occupational sedentary behavior was positively associated with obesity risk that was not attenuated by physical activity. In women, an increase in obesity risk was not observed with sedentary behavior. Gender differences in the health effects of sedentary behavior require further study.

Distinguishing sedentary from inactive: implications for meta-analyses

We read with great interest the meta-analysis by Cong et al (2014) recently published in British Journal of Cancer. As the authors acknowledge, sedentary behaviour is distinct from the lack of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity. As the first quantitative review of the studies examining associations of sedentary behaviour on colon and rectal cancer risk, this article makes a timely and novel contribution to the literature. However, we are concerned that the combined risk estimates generated by this meta-analysis may not accurately reflect the effect that can be attributed to sedentary behaviour. Many of the risk estimates included in the meta-analysis are from studies that investigated the association between occupational physical activity and the risk of colon and/or rectal cancers. As noted by Yates et al (2011), the ordinal scales commonly used to assess occupational physical activity (e.g., ‘sedentary', ‘moderate', ‘high') are not necessarily ordinal scales of sedentary behaviour. As high levels of sedentary behaviour can co-exist with high levels of physical activity, even within specific occupations, using these estimates of occupational physical activity to infer sedentary behaviour is likely to introduce substantial misclassification bias. A related issue is the inclusion of studies that have classified sedentary behaviour based on job title. While we do not believe it is necessarily wrong to include estimates of sedentary behaviour that are job title based, it is important to note that this method does not take into account within-job variation, seasonal changes or changes in job requirements over time (LaPorte et al, 1985), and may not reflect the actual activities performed on the job (Ainsworth et al, 1999). We would recommend that in future meta-analyses and reviews, these studies be given a lower exposure assessment quality rating than studies using self-reported or objectively assessed measures of sedentary behaviour. In addition, we suggest that subgroup analyses are conducted to investigate whether the results of studies relying on job title-based measures of sedentary behaviour differ from the results of studies with self-reported or objectively assessed measures of sedentary behaviour. Another issue that arises when using ordinal scales of occupational physical activity (job title-based or self-reported) in a sedentary behaviour context is the selection of the appropriate referent category. The most suitable referent group to compare jobs with high amounts of sedentary behaviour with are jobs that involve ‘mostly standing' or ‘light' activity. Within the meta-analysis performed by Cong et al (2014), there are several instances where the authors selected the most physically active category as the referent group (Garabrant et al, 1984; Fraser and Pearce, 1993; Weiderpass et al, 2003; Moradi et al, 2008). The relative risks generated by comparing the sedentary category with the most physically active will not solely reflect the effect of sedentary behaviour on colorectal cancer risk; part of the risk estimate will be attributed to the (inverse) of the risk reduction associated with physical activity. A similar error was made with the inclusion of data from two studies that compared recreational sedentary behaviour with recreational physical activity (Thune and Lund, 1996; Colbert et al, 2001). There are two final points that we would like to raise. First, the risk estimates included in the meta-analysis from the Campbell et al (2013) study pertain to colorectal cancer-specific survival rather than colorectal cancer risk. Second, there are three studies for which the authors have included risk estimates for two different measures of sedentary behaviour (e.g., recreational and occupational sedentary behaviour) in the primary meta-analysis (Thune and Lund, 1996; Colbert et al, 2001; Howard et al, 2008). This is effectively including the same study population twice, so these studies are arguably contributing more weight to the overall effect size than appropriate. Despite the concerns raised, we acknowledge that the meta-analysis presented by Cong et al (2014) has drawn attention to the potential role of sedentary behaviour in colon and rectal cancer aetiology. Clearly further studies, using well-designed and tested measures of sedentary behaviour, are required in this field.

Participatory workplace interventions can reduce sedentary time for office workers--a randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundOccupational sedentary behaviour is an important contributor to overall sedentary risk. There is limited evidence for effective workplace interventions to reduce occupational sedentary time and increase light activity during work hours. The purpose of the study was to determine if participatory workplace interventions could reduce total sedentary time, sustained sedentary time (bouts >30 minutes), increase the frequency of breaks in sedentary time and promote light intensity activity and moderate/vigorous activity (MVPA) during work hours.MethodsA randomised controlled trial (ANZCTR number: ACTN12612000743864) was conducted using clerical, call centre and data processing workers (n = 62, aged 25–59 years) in 3 large government organisations in Perth, Australia. Three groups developed interventions with a participatory approach: ‘Active office’ (n = 19), ‘Active Workstation’ and promotion of incidental office activity; ‘Traditional physical activity’ (n = 14), pedometer challenge to increase activity between productive work time and ‘Office ergonomics’ (n = 29), computer workstation design and breaking up computer tasks. Accelerometer (ActiGraph GT3X, 7 days) determined sedentary time, sustained sedentary time, breaks in sedentary time, light intensity activity and MVPA on work days and during work hours were measured before and following a 12 week intervention period.ResultsFor all participants there was a significant reduction in sedentary time on work days (−1.6%, p = 0.006) and during work hours (−1.7%, p = 0.014) and a significant increase in number of breaks/sedentary hour on work days (0.64, p = 0.005) and during work hours (0.72, p = 0.015); there was a concurrent significant increase in light activity during work hours (1.5%, p = 0.012) and MVPA on work days (0.6%, p = 0.012).ConclusionsThis study explored novel ways to modify work practices to reduce occupational sedentary behaviour. Participatory workplace interventions can reduce sedentary time, increase the frequency of breaks and improve light activity and MVPA of office workers by using a variety of interventions.Trial RegistrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTN12612000743864.

Sit-stand desks and sedentary behavior in Swedish call centre workers

Introduction: Adults spend approximately 8 to 9 hours of the day in sedentary behavior and much of this is gathered at work. The rising level of occupational sedentary behavior is both a public hea ...

Levels of physical activity and inactivity in children and adults in the United States: current evidence and research issues.

The purpose was to describe current levels of physical activity and inactivity among adults and young people in the United States. Estimates of participation in regular physical activity were derived from three national surveys for adults (National Health Interview Survey, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System) and from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey for high school students. Overall, 63.8% of high school students surveyed on the 1997 YRBS reported participating in vigorous physical activity for at least 20 min on 3 or more days per week. Participation in vigorous activity was higher for boys (72.3%) than girls (53.5%), whites (66.8%) compared with blacks (53.9%) and Hispanics (60.4%), and decreased with advancing grade. Among adults, 27.7% meet recommended levels of either moderate or vigorous physical activity, whereas 29.2% report no regular physical activity outside of their work. Gender differences in participation in physical activity are less pronounced than in youth, and age-related patterns were complex. Whites are more active than blacks and Hispanics, and persons with higher family incomes and more education report being more physically active. There have been only minor changes in reported participation in leisure time physical activity over the past 15 yr. National estimates of physical activity appear to be reliable and valid for adults but may be less so for adolescents and are poor measures for children. Research is needed to determine the role that objective monitoring with accelerometers may play in surveillance. Reliable and valid measures of occupational, household, and transportation-related physical activity and sedentary behaviors are needed to better characterize the range of activity that is associated with health.