Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41249967›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2025

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.

Carina Schöne, Martha Sauter, Eva-Maria Backé, Michaela Prigge, Claudia Brendler, Janice Hegewald

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Carina Schöne *Unit 3.1 Prevention of Work-Related Diseases, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Nöldnerstr. 40-42, Berlin, 10317, Germany.
Martha Sauter *Unit 3.1 Prevention of Work-Related Diseases, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Nöldnerstr. 40-42, Berlin, 10317, Germany. sedentary@baua.bund.de.
Eva-Maria BackéUnit 3.1 Prevention of Work-Related Diseases, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Nöldnerstr. 40-42, Berlin, 10317, Germany.
Michaela PriggeUnit 3.1 Prevention of Work-Related Diseases, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Nöldnerstr. 40-42, Berlin, 10317, Germany.
Claudia BrendlerUnit 3.1 Prevention of Work-Related Diseases, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Nöldnerstr. 40-42, Berlin, 10317, Germany.
Janice HegewaldUnit 3.1 Prevention of Work-Related Diseases, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Nöldnerstr. 40-42, Berlin, 10317, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSedentary behaviour (SB) and the lack of physical activity (PA) are associated with negative health outcomes. Among desk-based workers, sitting at work contributes substantially to the daily time spent sedentary. Working environment can influence SB. Thus, we aimed to investigate the evidence on the impact of working from home/teleworking (WFH), which is now a common working environment versus working onsite on SB and PA.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review comparing SB and PA of workers WFH compared to onsite work. We searched Pubmed, Embase and SPORTDiscus (last search: June 2025). At least two reviewers independently screened the studies and rated the of risk of bias based on adapted existing tools. We included studies on adult workers, which at least part-time WFH with comparison group working onsite, reporting SB or/and PA-outcomes per workday/work time. Data extraction was done by one reviewer and checked by two reviewers. Results were described qualitatively and random-effect meta-analyses for daily sedentary time (ST), sitting breaks, and steps were performed.

resultsWe included 38 studies (from 42 articles, with n = 282,264 subjects) comparing WFH and onsite work. Four of these studies were rated as having a “low” risk of bias. SB was described in 23 studies (with n = 209,267 subjects). A meta-analysis of studies reporting quantitative results suggests an increase in ST of 31 min (95% CI 14 to 48; I2 = 57.5%; 7 studies) during work hours when WFH. PA was described in 36 studies (with n = 270,617 subjects), and the meta-analysis found a decrease in daily steps of 2564 (mean difference: − 2564; 95% CI -3809 to -1320, 289; I2 = 91.4%; 7 studies) when WFH.

conclusionWe found SB tends to increase and daily steps tend to decrease when WFH compared to onsite work. Studies of PA varied in their methods and results, and few studies measured movement. As most of the studies (n = 31) were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, that may have influenced the results. Nevertheless, workplace interventions that aim to reduce SB and promote PA need to be adapted to the home working environment. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022349442.

Indexed as

ExerciseSedentary BehaviorTeleworkingWorkplaceHumansWorking ConditionsHealth promotionHybrid workingPhysical inactivitySitting behaviourSitting breaksTeleworking

Identifiers

PMID41249967
PMCPMC12621373

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.