Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29145883›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2017

Self-reported actual and desired proportion of sitting, standing, walking and physically demanding tasks of office employees in the workplace setting: do they fit together?

Birgit Wallmann-Sperlich, Josephine Y Chau, Ingo Froboese

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Birgit Wallmann-SperlichInstitute for Sports Science, Julius-Maximilians University Würzburg, Am Judenbühlweg 11, Würzburg, 97082, Germany. birgit.sperlich@uni-wuerzburg.de.
Josephine Y ChauPrevention Research Collaboration, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Charles Perkins Centre, Sydney, Australia. josephine.chau@sydney.edu.au.
Ingo FroboeseInstitute of Health Promotion and Clinical Movement Science, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

National Heart Foundation of Australia #100567
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveOccupational sitting time in white-collar workers represents a prominent contributor to overall daily sitting time, which is associated with various health risks. Workplace interventions intending to reduce sitting time during work typically focus on replacing sitting with standing. The aim was to investigate and compare actual and desired proportions of time spent sitting, standing, walking, and doing physically demanding tasks at work reported by desk-based workers. Cross-sectional data were collected from German desk-based workers (n = 614; 53.3% men; 40.9 ± 13.5 years). All were interviewed about their self-reported actual and desired level of sitting, standing, walking and physically demanding tasks at work.

resultsDesk-based workers reported to sit 73.0%, stand 10.2%, walk 12.9% and do physically demanding tasks 3.9% of their working hours. However, the individuals desire to sit, stand, walk and do physically demand tasks significantly different [53.8% sit, 15.8% stand, 22.8% walk, physically demanding tasks (7.7%), p < 0.001]. The present data revealed greatest mismatch between the desk-based workers' actual and desired time for sitting and walking. Health promotion programs should offer not only options for more standing but also opportunities for more walking within the workplace setting to better match workers' desires.

Indexed as

Occupational HealthSedentary BehaviorWorkplaceCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostureSelf ReportSurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsCross-sectionalOffice-workersPhysical activitySitting time

Identifiers

PMID29145883
PMCPMC5693475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.