ArticleBMC public health2025
Recovery from work and physical activity among Finnish higher education personnel - an online survey study.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecovery from work is precious for higher education personnel due to workload pressures, psychosocial distress, and burnout risk. Research is needed on how they recover from their work and whether they utilize physical activity as a recovery activity. This study aimed to explore recovery from work, physical activity, and active breaks among higher education personnel.
methodsThe participants were Finnish higher education personnel members who belonged to a professional association (N = 1578). Data was collected between 1-2/2025 with an online survey, comprising questions of background information, recovery from work (the Need for Recovery, NfR), and physical activity (Global Physical Activity Questionnaire, GPAQ). Descriptive statistics, crosstabulation, nonparametric tests, and linear regression were used.
resultsThe response rate was 15% (n = 229). The respondents recovered moderately, with a median NfR of 3.1 on a scale of 1-5. On average, they had vigorous leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) 3 days per week and moderate LTPA 4 days per week, while 88% reported no occupational physical activity (OPA). Persons who were physically active during breaks had a lower NfR (median 2.9 vs. 3.2), as well as those with 3-4 vigorous LTPA days per week (median NfR 2.7), than persons not engaging in vigorous LTPA (3.2). However, in the linear regression model adjusted for age, gender, sedentary time, active commuting, and physical activity and sports as a hobby, the associations of vigorous LTPA and active breaks with NfR were not statistically significant. Only age explained NfR.
conclusionsThe findings of this study confirm differences in NfR by physical activity during breaks and LTPA. Adjusted models did not verify direct associations of NfR with active breaks and LTPA. Only age explained NfR in the adjusted linear regression model.
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.