ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine2025
Does accelerometer-measured physical activity and sedentary time differ between manual, in-office, hybrid and remote workers?
Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The impact of working from home on sedentary behaviour and physical activity compared to onsite work in the working population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Telework-related health outcomes in Japan and globally: Implications for avatar-based work standards.Work (Reading, Mass.) · 2026Review
- The associations of sedentary behaviour and physical activity with musculoskeletal symptoms in hybrid office workers: a compositional data analysis.BMC public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesStudies on accelerometer-measured daily physical activity behaviour, especially among hybrid and remote workers, are scarce. We compared daily occupational and non-occupational physical activity and sedentary time among manual, in-office, hybrid and remote workers. In addition, physical activity behaviour during remote and office workdays among hybrid workers was compared.
methodsDaily physical activity behaviour was collected with wrist-worn accelerometers on ≥4 days from 133 Finnish workers (31 years, 61% women). Participants were divided into four groups according to their work modes: manual (n=32), in-office (n=49), hybrid (n=35) and remote workers (n=17). Differences in physical activity and sedentary time during workdays (separately for occupational and non-occupational time) between the groups were examined using generalised linear models. Linear mixed models were used for intra-individual differences among hybrid workers.
resultsWorkdays' occupational physical activity and sedentary time differed between the work mode groups (p<0.0001); the manual workers accumulated the highest occupational physical activity, while both hybrid and remote workers accumulated the highest occupational sedentary time. No differences in non-occupational behaviours were observed. Among hybrid workers, occupational sedentary time tended to be higher (26 min, 95% CI -2 to 53) during remote versus office workdays, but non-occupational behaviours were similar.
conclusionsRemote work is associated with the lowest physical activity and the highest sedentary time compared with other work modes. Strategies to promote physical activity during remote workdays may be needed.
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.