Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34403840›Full record

ArticleApplied ergonomics2021

Validity of the occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire (OSPAQ) for home-based office workers during the COVID-19 global pandemic: A secondary analysis.

Kirsten Dillon, Madison Hiemstra, Marc Mitchell, Nina Bartmann, Scott Rollo, Paul A Gardiner, Harry Prapavessis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied ergonomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. National implementation trial of BeUpstanding™: an online initiative for workers to sit less and move more.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. The Importance of Research on Occupational Sedentary Behaviour and Activity Right Now.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Kirsten DillonSchool of Kinesiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada. Electronic address: kdillon9@uwo.ca.
Madison HiemstraSchool of Kinesiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
Marc MitchellSchool of Kinesiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
Nina BartmannCenter for Advanced Hindsight, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Scott RolloHealthy Active Living and Obesity Research Group, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L1, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada.
Paul A GardinerSchool of Kinesiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada; School of Health & Wellbeing, Faculty of Health, Engineering and Sciences, University of Southern Queensland, Queensland, Australia.
Harry PrapavessisSchool of Kinesiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High levels of occupational sitting is an emerging health concern. As working from home has become a common practice as a result of COVID-19, it is imperative to validate an appropriate self-report measure to assess sitting in this setting. This secondary analysis study aimed to validate the occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire (OSPAQ) against an activPAL4™ in full-time home-based 'office' workers (n = 148; mean age = 44.90). Participants completed a modified version of the OSPAQ and wore an activPAL4™ for a full work week. The findings suggest that the modified OSPAQ has fair levels of validity in terms of correlation for sitting and standing (ρ = 0.35-0.43, all p < 0.05) and agreement (bias = 2-12%) at the group level; however, estimates were poor at an individual level, as suggested by wide limits of agreement (±22-30%). Overall, the OSPAQ showed to be an easily administered and valid questionnaire to measure group level sitting and standing in this sample of adults.

Indexed as

COVID-19Occupational HealthAdultExerciseHumansMiddle AgedPandemicsReproducibility of ResultsSARS-CoV-2Sedentary BehaviorSitting PositionSurveys and QuestionnairesWorkplaceactivPAL™Measurement-of-agreementOSPAQ

Identifiers

PMID34403840
PMCPMC9746924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.