Objectively Measured Total and Occupational Sedentary Time in Three Work Settings

Abstract

BackgroundSedentary behaviour increases the risk for morbidity. Our primary aim is to determine the proportion and factors associated with objectively measured total and occupational sedentary time in three work settings. Secondary aim is to study the proportion of physical activity and prolonged sedentary bouts.MethodsData were obtained using ActiGraph accelerometers from employees of: 1) a financial service provider (n = 49 men, 31 women), 2) two research institutes (n = 30 men, 57 women), and 3) a construction company (n = 38 men). Total (over the whole day) and occupational sedentary time, physical activity and prolonged sedentary bouts (lasting ≥30 minutes) were calculated by work setting. Linear regression analyses were performed to examine general, health and work-related factors associated with sedentary time.ResultsThe employees of the financial service provider and the research institutes spent 76–80% of their occupational time in sedentary behaviour, 18–20% in light intensity physical activity and 3–5% in moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity. Occupational time in prolonged sedentary bouts was 27–30%. Total time was less sedentary (64–70%), and had more light intensity physical activity (26–33%). The employees of the construction company spent 44% of their occupational time in sedentary behaviour, 49% in light, and 7% in moderate intensity physical activity, and spent 7% in sedentary bouts. Total time spent in sedentary behavior was 56%, 40% in light, and 4% in moderate intensity physical behaviour, and 12% in sedentary bouts. For women, low to intermediate education was the only factor that was negatively associated with occupational sedentary time.ConclusionsSedentary behaviour is high among white-collar employees, especially in highly educated women. A relatively small proportion of sedentary time was accrued in sedentary bouts. It is recommended that worksite health promotion efforts should focus on reducing sedentary behaviour through improving light intensity physical activity.

The effects of introducing electric adjustable height desks in an office setting on workplace physical activity levels: A randomised control field trial

“…Other studies [22,[34][35][36] obtained similar results, where sitting times were also halved for an intervention group in comparison with a control group in which sitting times remained unchanged. The recorded sitting times of the Control group (77%) in the present study were in agreement with the findings of baseline studies of activity in the workplace [12,26,36].…”

“…For example, in approximately 15 hours of a waking day for a working population [6,7], more than half is spent sedentary [8]. Since work time accounts for almost half of the daily total [9][10][11][12] the workplace has been identified as an opportunity for reducing overall sedentary time and for introducing physical activity.…”

“…Straker et al [39] found that 21.5% of the day was standing with a sit-stand desk compared to 16.2% of the day with a conventional fixed sitting height desk. Using an accelerometer van Dommelen [12] recorded white collar workers sitting for between 76-80% of their occupational time. The results from these studies [12,29,36] support the baseline of normal sitting and standing patterns at work.…”

“…Using an accelerometer van Dommelen [12] recorded white collar workers sitting for between 76-80% of their occupational time. The results from these studies [12,29,36] support the baseline of normal sitting and standing patterns at work.…”

Do highly physically active workers die early? A systematic review with meta-analysis of data from 193 696 participants

“…This is particularly important as (despite a general trend of a reduction in energy expenditure at work over the past decades) a large fraction of the working population worldwide is still engaging in high level occupational PA,25 with even higher effective workloads for those working in outdoor or in insufficiently controlled indoor climate environments 57. Workers who are active at work are furthermore known to be fairly inactive during their leisure time 58. When the empirical evidence for the PA paradox is confirmed in more high quality studies, specific guidance on the appropriate type of PA and on safe levels of occupational PA are needed, especially for physically active workers.…”