Background: The Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire (OSPAQ) was developed as an easy-touse instrument for self-reported assessment of percentage sitting, standing, walking, and performing heavy labour in a workplace setting. This study aimed to evaluate the concurrent validity of all dimensions of the OSPAQ compared to accelerometer-assessed measures of occupational physical activities in a mixed sample of sedentary and physically active professions. Methods: Data from the Flemish Employees' Physical Activity (FEPA) study were used, including employees from the service and production sector. All participants filled in a questionnaire, underwent clinical measurements, and wore two Axivity AX3 accelerometers for at least 2 consecutive working days. Intraclass (ICC) and Spearman rho correlations (r) were analyzed to assess concurrent validity. Results: The sample included 401 workers (16% sedentary profession) with a mean age of 39.2 (± 11) years. Concurrent validity was good and moderate for assessing percentage of sitting (ICC = 0.84; r = 0.53), and standing (ICC = 0.64; r = 0.53), respectively. The concurrent validity for walking was weak to moderate (ICC = 0.50; r = 0.49), and weak for performing heavy labour (ICC = 0.28; r = 0.35). Stronger validity scores were found in sedentary professions for occupational sitting and standing. In physically active professions, an underestimation of selfreported sitting and standing was found, and an overestimation of self-reported walking and heavy labour. No significant self-reported over-or underestimation was found for sitting and heavy labour in sedentary professions, but an underestimation of self-reported standing and an overestimation of self-reported walking was observed. Conclusions: The OSPAQ has acceptable measurement properties for assessing occupational sitting and standing. Accelerometer-assessed measures of occupational walking and heavy labour are recommended, since a poor concurrent validity was found for both.
Background In the current labour system many workers are still exposed to heavy physical demands during their job. In contrast to leisure time physical activity (LTPA), occupational physical activity (OPA) is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases and all-cause mortality, termed “the physical activity (PA) health paradox”. In order to gain more insight into the PA health paradox, an exploration of structural preventive measures at the workplace is needed and therefore objective field measurements are highly recommended. The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the protocol of the Flemish Employees’ Physical Activity (FEPA) study, including objective measurements of PA, heart rate (HR) and cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) to gain more insight into the PA health paradox. Methods A total of 401 workers participated in the FEPA study across seven companies in the service and production sector in Belgium. The participants comprised 167 men and 234 women, aged 20 to 65 years. OPA and LTPA were assessed by two Axivity AX3 accelerometers on the thigh and upper back. Ambulatory HR was measured by the Faros eMotion 90° monitor. Both devices were worn during two to four consecutive working days. In addition, CRF was estimated by using the Harvard Step Test. Statistical analyses will be performed using Pearson correlation, and multiple regression adjusted for possible confounders. Discussion This study aims to provide a better insight in the PA health paradox and the possible buffering factors by using valid and objective measurements of PA and HR (both during LTPA and OPA) over multiple working days. The results of the study can contribute to the prevention of cardiovascular disease by providing tailored recommendations for participants with high levels of OPA and by disseminating the results and recommendations to workplaces, policy makers and occupational health practitioners.
Despite numerous IT innovations and technological changes in the health care services, high levels of occupational physical activity (OPA) remain prevalent in nursing professions (Kakemam et al., 2019). OPA is known to have a detrimental effect on health and to increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases (Skielboe, Marott,
In contrast to leisure time physical activity (LTPA), occupational physical activity (OPA) does not have similar beneficial health effects. These differential health effects might be explained by dissimilar effects of LTPA and OPA on cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). This study investigated cross-sectional associations between different physical behaviours during both work and leisure time and CRF by using a Compositional Data Analysis approach. Physical behaviours were assessed by two accelerometers among 309 workers with various manual jobs. During work time, more sedentary behaviour (SB) was associated with higher CRF when compared relatively to time spent on other work behaviours, while more SB during leisure time was associated with lower CRF when compared to other leisure time behaviours. Reallocating more time to moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) from the other behaviours within leisure time was positively associated with CRF, which was not the case for MVPA during work. The results of our study are in line with the physical activity health paradox and we call for further study on the interaction between LTPA and OPA by implementing device-worn measures in a longitudinal design. Our results highlight the need for recommendations to take into account the different effects of OPA and LTPA on CRF.
Background There is increasing interest in the association between psychological distress and time spent in sedentary behaviour (e.g. sitting), a highly prevalent behaviour in modern society. The limited evidence is mixed and mainly based on studies using self-reported sedentary time. Few studies have investigated device-based total sedentary time in its association with distress. None, however, have examined device-based domain-specific sedentary time in relation to psychological distress. The aim of this study was to investigate whether device-based total and domain-specific sedentary behaviour were associated with psychological distress. Methods Flemish employees (n = 401; 20–64 years; 42.6% male; 83.6% had a ‘physically active occupation’) of seven organizations in service and production sectors participated. Sedentary behaviour (exposure) was assessed by two Axivity AX3 accelerometers (one placed on the thigh and one placed between the shoulders) for two to four consecutive working days. Based on diary completion, domain-specific sedentary behaviour (leisure vs. work) was assessed. The 12-item General Health Questionnaire was used to assess psychological distress (outcome). Adjusted hierarchical multiple regression models were conducted to report on the associations between total and domain-specific sedentary behaviour and psychological distress. Results About 35% of the sample had high levels of distress and average total sedentary time was 7.2 h/day. Device-based total sedentary behaviour [B = −0.009, 95% confidence interval (CI), −0.087 to 0.068], leisure-time (B = 0.001, 95% CI, −0.017 to 0.018) and work-related (B = 0.004, 95% CI, −0.006 to 0.015) sedentary behaviour were not significantly associated with psychological distress. Conclusion This cross-sectional study examining the association between device-based total and domain-specific sedentary behaviour and psychological distress among employees showed a lack of significant findings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.