ArticleBMC public health2020
The occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire (OSPAQ): a validation study with accelerometer-assessed measures.
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 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- What works to reduce sedentary behavior in the office, and could these intervention components transfer to the home working environment?: A rapid review and transferability appraisal.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Pooled it
- Differential Associations of Occupational and Total Physical Activity with Sleep Quality Among Adults in the United Arab Emirates: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- TwinAIR health study: protocol for a European multi-centred, longitudinal study on indoor environmental quality (IEQ) related health and well-being.BMC public health · 2026Article
- From Assessment to Impact: How Workplace Health Screening Informs Staff Wellbeing in a University Setting.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Associations of physical activity and sedentary behavior with happiness in Japanese worker types of occupational activity requirements.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Interrupting sedentary behaviour in the workplace through active breaks: a protocol study.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2026Article
- Are we working (too) comfortably?: the systematic development of an intervention to support workers to move more while working at home.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2025Article
- Prevalence of metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease among information technology employees in India.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Sitting time at work and cardiovascular disease risk-a longitudinal analysis of the Study on Mental Health at Work (S-MGA).International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2025Article
- Questionnaire-based scoring system for screening moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in middle-aged Japanese workers.Journal of occupational health · 2024Article
- Workplace active breaks for university workers: the UNIFIT pilot study protocol.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2024Article
- The impact of leisure-time physical activity and occupational physical activity on sickness absence. A prospective study among people with physically demanding jobs.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2023Article
- "Are We Working (Too) Comfortably?": Understanding the Nature of and Factors Associated with Sedentary Behaviour When Working in the Home Environment.Occupational health science · 2023Article
- Association between Physical Activity Guidelines and Sedentary Time with Workers' Health-Related Quality of Life in a Spanish Multinational Company.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Sitting less and moving more for improved metabolic and brain health in type 2 diabetes: 'OPTIMISE your health' trial protocol.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Physical activity and sitting time in occupational groups from Papua New Guinea.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2022Article
- Occupational determinants of physical activity at work: Evidence from wearable accelerometer in 2005-2006 NHANES.SSM - population health · 2022Article
- Validity of the occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire (OSPAQ) for home-based office workers during the COVID-19 global pandemic: A secondary analysis.Applied ergonomics · 2021Article
- A Mixed Methods Evaluation of a Digital Intervention to Improve Sedentary Behaviour Across Multiple Workplace Settings.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire (OSPAQ) was developed as an easy-to-use instrument for self-reported assessment of percentage sitting, standing, walking, and performing heavy labour in a workplace setting. This study aimed to evaluate the concurrent validity of all dimensions of the OSPAQ compared to accelerometer-assessed measures of occupational physical activities in a mixed sample of sedentary and physically active professions.
methodsData from the Flemish Employees' Physical Activity (FEPA) study were used, including employees from the service and production sector. All participants filled in a questionnaire, underwent clinical measurements, and wore two Axivity AX3 accelerometers for at least 2 consecutive working days. Intraclass (ICC) and Spearman rho correlations (r) were analyzed to assess concurrent validity.
resultsThe sample included 401 workers (16% sedentary profession) with a mean age of 39.2 (± 11) years. Concurrent validity was good and moderate for assessing percentage of sitting (ICC = 0.84; r = 0.53), and standing (ICC = 0.64; r = 0.53), respectively. The concurrent validity for walking was weak to moderate (ICC = 0.50; r = 0.49), and weak for performing heavy labour (ICC = 0.28; r = 0.35). Stronger validity scores were found in sedentary professions for occupational sitting and standing. In physically active professions, an underestimation of self-reported sitting and standing was found, and an overestimation of self-reported walking and heavy labour. No significant self-reported over- or underestimation was found for sitting and heavy labour in sedentary professions, but an underestimation of self-reported standing and an overestimation of self-reported walking was observed.
conclusionsThe OSPAQ has acceptable measurement properties for assessing occupational sitting and standing. Accelerometer-assessed measures of occupational walking and heavy labour are recommended, since a poor concurrent validity was found for both.
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.