Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32487107›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

Sitting, standing and moving during work and leisure among male and female office workers of different age: a compositional data analysis.

Elin Johansson, Svend Erik Mathiassen, Charlotte Lund Rasmusse, David M Hallman

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Physical work environment in an activity-based flex office: a longitudinal case study.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Sex-specific aspects of venous thromboembolism: What is new and what is next?Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Underlying Factors Explaining Physical Behaviors among Office Workers-An Exploratory Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Elin JohanssonCentre for Musculoskeletal Research, Department of Occupational Health Sciences and Psychology, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden. Elin.Johansson@hig.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2135-3780
Svend Erik MathiassenCentre for Musculoskeletal Research, Department of Occupational Health Sciences and Psychology, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden.
Charlotte Lund RasmusseNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark.
David M HallmanCentre for Musculoskeletal Research, Department of Occupational Health Sciences and Psychology, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden.
University of Gävle · SEUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare 2009-1761
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGendered patterns of physical activity behaviours may help explaining health inequalities between men and women. However, evidence on such patterns in the working population is sparse. This study aimed at documenting and comparing compositions of sitting, standing and moving at work and during leisure among male and female office workers of different age.

methodsSitting (including lying), standing and moving were measured using accelerometry for, on average, four working days in 55 male and 57 female Swedish office workers. Behaviours were described in terms of time spent in four exhaustive categories: sitting in short (< 30 min) and long (≥30 min) bouts, standing, and moving. In a compositional data analysis approach, isometric log-ratios (ilr) were calculated for time sitting relative to non-sitting, time in short relative to long sitting bouts, and time in standing relative to moving. Differences between genders (men vs. women), domains (work vs. leisure), and according to age were examined for each ilr using ANOVA.

resultsAt work, time spent sitting in short bouts, sitting in long bouts, standing, and moving was, on average, 29, 43, 21 and 7% among men, and 28, 38, 26 and 7% among women. Corresponding proportions during leisure were 34, 27, 27 and 13% among men and 28, 27, 32 and 13% among women. Men spent more time sitting relative to non-sitting ([Formula: see text] =0.04, p = 0.03) than women, and less time standing relative to moving ([Formula: see text] =0.07, p = 0.01). At work compared to during leisure, both genders spent more time sitting relative to non-sitting ([Formula: see text] =0.47, p < 0.01); within sitting more time was spent in long relative to short sitting bouts ([Formula: see text] =0.26, p < 0.01), and within non-sitting, more time was spent standing than moving ([Formula: see text] =0.12, p < 0.01). Older workers spent less of their non-sitting time moving than younger workers ([Formula: see text] =0.07, p = 0.01).

conclusionMale office workers spent more time sitting relative to non-sitting than female workers, and more time moving relative to standing. Both genders were sitting more at work than during leisure. Older workers moved less than younger. These workers could likely benefit from interventions to reduce or break up prolonged sitting time, preferably by moving more.

Indexed as

ExerciseLeisure ActivitiesSitting PositionStanding PositionAccelerometryAdultAge FactorsData AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSex FactorsSwedenWomen, WorkingWorkplaceAccelerometryAgeCoDAGenderOccupationalPhysical activity

Identifiers

PMID32487107
PMCPMC7268323
OpenAlexW3030849049

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.