Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33683779›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational health2021

Associations of working from home with occupational physical activity and sedentary behavior under the COVID-19 pandemic.

Noritoshi Fukushima, Masaki Machida, Hiroyuki Kikuchi, Shiho Amagasa, Toshio Hayashi, Yuko Odagiri, Tomoko Takamiya, Shigeru Inoue

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Noritoshi FukushimaDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1819-554X
Masaki MachidaDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroyuki KikuchiDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0510-1030
Shiho AmagasaDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Toshio HayashiDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Yuko OdagiriDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Tomoko TakamiyaDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Shigeru InoueDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

Meiji Yasuda Life Foundation of Health and Welfare
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB) levels during work time between those who work from home (WFH) and at workplaces (no WFH), and by WFH subgroups.

methodsThis cross-sectional internet-based survey included 1239 workers (mean age [standard deviation], 44.7 [13.7] years; 59.2% men) living in the Tokyo Metropolitan Area. Time spent sitting (SB), standing (light-intensity PA; LPA), walking, and engaging in heavy labor (moderate-to-vigorous PA; MVPA) during work time was measured using the Work-related Physical Activity Questionnaire. Workers reported weekly WFH percentages (eg, 0% implies no WFH and 100% implies full WFH), and WFH percentages were categorized into no WFH (0% WFH) and WFH (1%-100% WFH) groups. The WFH group was further subcategorized into 1%-25%, 26%-50%, 51%-75%, and 76%-100% subgroups.

resultsOverall, 494 workers (39.9%) worked from home. During working hours, SB time was longer in the WFH group than in the no WFH group (mean minutes [% working-time SB]: 335.7 vs 224.7 min [74% vs 50%]). Significantly shorter LPA and MVPA times (%) were reported in the WFH group than in the no WFH group (LPA, 59.6 vs 122.9 min [14% vs 29%]; MVPA, 55.3 vs 91.9 min [13% vs 22%], all P < .001). Among the WFH subgroups, longer SB time and shorter LPA and MVPA times were observed in the highest WFH group (WFH 76%-100%) than in the WFH 1%-25% and 26%-50% subgroups.

conclusionsWorkers who telecommuted were less physically active and had longer sedentary during work time than those who worked at the workplaces.

Indexed as

COVID-19ExerciseSedentary BehaviorTeleworkingWorkplaceAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsSurveys and QuestionnairesTokyoCOVID-19physical activitysedentary behaviortelework

Identifiers

PMID33683779
PMCPMC7938758

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.