Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32366824›Full record

ArticleTranslational psychiatry2020

Associations of interruptions to leisure-time sedentary behaviour with symptoms of depression and anxiety.

Mats Hallgren, Thi-Thuy-Dung Nguyen, Neville Owen, Davy Vancampfort, Lee Smith, David W Dunstan, Gunnar Andersson, Peter Wallin, Elin Ekblom-Bak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational psychiatry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Determining minimum number of valid days for accurate estimation of sedentary behaviour and awake-time movement behaviours using the ActivPAL3 in nursing home residents.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Mats HallgrenEpidemiology of Psychiatric Conditions, Substance use and Social Environment (EPiCSS), Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, 171 77, Sweden. mats.hallgren@ki.se.
Thi-Thuy-Dung NguyenEpidemiology of Psychiatric Conditions, Substance use and Social Environment (EPiCSS), Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, 171 77, Sweden.
Neville OwenBehavioral Epidemiology Laboratory, Baker Heart & Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia; and, Centre for Urban Transitions, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Davy VancampfortDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Leuven; and, University Psychiatric Center, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Lee SmithDepartment of Life Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.
David W DunstanPhysical Activity Laboratory, Baker Heart & Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia; and, Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Gunnar AnderssonResearch Department, HPI Health Profile Institute, Danderyd, Sweden.
Peter WallinResearch Department, HPI Health Profile Institute, Danderyd, Sweden.
Elin Ekblom-BakAstrand Laboratory of Work Physiology, The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

Department of Health | National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) 1118225
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interruptions to time spent sitting can ameliorate detrimental metabolic-health consequences of high volumes of sedentary time, but their potential mental health benefits have not been examined. We used the Swedish Health Profile Assessment database, a general health assessment offered to all employees working for companies or organisations connected to occupational and health services. Cross-sectional analyses examined data from 40,550 employees (60% male, mean age = 42 years), collected in 2017-2019. Participants reported the proportion of time (almost always; 75% of the time; 50% of the time; 25% of the time; and almost never) usually spent in leisure-time sedentary behaviours; and, separately, the frequency (never; rarely; sometimes; often; and very often) of interruptions (every 30 min) to sedentary time. Logistic regression models assessed associations of sedentary time, and the frequency of interruptions to sedentary time, with depression/anxiety symptoms. Fully adjusted models included physical exercise. Compared to those in the lowest sedentary time category, those in the medium and high categories had 1.52 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.40-1.66) and 3.11 (95% CI = 2.82-3.42) higher odds of frequent depression/anxiety symptoms, respectively. Compared to those who never/rarely interrupted their sedentary time, those who reported interruptions sometimes, often and very often had 0.72 (95% CI = 0.65-0.80), 0.59 (95% CI = 0.53-0.65), and 0.53 (95% CI = 0.46-0.59) lower odds of depression/anxiety symptoms, respectively. In stratified analyses, more frequent interruptions to sedentary time were associated with lower odds of depression/anxiety symptoms, except among those in the lowest interruptions categories (never/25% of the time). More regularly interrupting sitting during leisure-time may reduce the odds of experiencing symptoms of depression and anxiety.

Indexed as

DepressionSedentary BehaviorAdultAnxietyCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansLeisure ActivitiesMaleSweden

Identifiers

PMID32366824
PMCPMC7198536

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.