ArticleAnnals of epidemiology2019
Stand and Move at Work sedentary behavior questionnaire: validity and sensitivity to change.
Article in Annals of epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2020Pooled it
- Hybrid office work in women and men: do directly measured physical behaviors differ between days working from home and days working at the office?Annals of work exposures and health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe evaluated the validity and sensitivity to change of a workplace questionnaire to assess sedentary behavior (SB) during and outside work.
methodsParticipants wore an activPAL and completed an SB questionnaire at two time points (baseline and 3-month follow-up). Ecological momentary assessments were used to assess workplace location (at desk vs. away from desk). Intraclass correlation coefficients, mean difference, root of mean square error, kappa agreement, and Bland-Altman plots assessed validity. Sensitivity to change after 3 months of intervention was assessed using the standardized effect size.
resultsData from 546 participants (age = 45.1 ± 16.4 years, 24.9% males, 72.7% white) were analyzed. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.08 to 0.23. SB was overestimated d¯(95%CI)[] by 47.9 (39.2, 56.6) min during work hours but underestimated for both non-work hours and nonworkdays by -38.3 (-47.4, 29.1) and -106.7 (124.0, -89.5) min, respectively. Participants slightly underestimated SB by -3.4 (-12.6, 5.7)% when at their desk but overestimated SB by 2.8 (-2.4, 8.0)% when not at their desk. The questionnaire demonstrated similar standardized effect size (>0.6) to the activPAL for sedentary and standing time.
conclusionsAgreement between the questionnaire and activPAL was on par with other self-report measures. The questionnaire yielded valid estimates of at/away from desk SB and was sensitive to change.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.