The effect of leisure time physical activity and sedentary behaviour on the health of workers with different occupational physical activity demands: a systematic review

Abstract

Background Although it is generally accepted that physical activity reduces the risk for chronic non-communicable disease and mortality, accumulating evidence suggests that occupational physical activity (OPA) may not confer the same health benefits as leisure time physical activity (LTPA). It is also unclear if workers in high OPA jobs benefit from LTPA the same way as those in sedentary jobs. Our objective was to determine whether LTPA and leisure time sedentary behaviour (LTSB) confer the same health effects across occupations with different levels of OPA. Methods Searches were run in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, ProQuest Public Health and Scopus from inception to June 9, 2020. Prospective or experimental studies which examined the effects of LTPA or LTSB on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal pain, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, arrhythmias and depression among adult workers grouped by OPA (low OPA/sitters, standers, moderate OPA/intermittent movers, high OPA/heavy labourers) were eligible. Results were synthesized using narrative syntheses and harvest plots, and certainty of evidence assessed with GRADE. Results The review includes 38 papers. Across all outcomes, except cardiovascular mortality, metabolic syndrome and atrial fibrillation, greater LTPA was consistently protective among low OPA, but conferred less protection among moderate and high OPA. For cardiovascular mortality and metabolic syndrome, higher levels of LTPA were generally associated with similar risk reductions among all OPA groups. Few studies examined effects in standers and none examined effects of LTSB across OPA groups. Conclusions Evidence suggests that LTPA is beneficial for all workers, but with larger risk reductions among those with low compared to high OPA jobs. This suggests that, in our attempts to improve the health of workers through LTPA, tailored interventions for different occupational groups may be required. More high-quality studies are needed to establish recommended levels of LTPA/LTSB for different OPA groups. Protocol registration PROSPERO #CRD42020191708.

Musculoskeletal pain and sedentary behaviour in occupational and non-occupational settings: a systematic review with meta-analysis

“…For instance, we also observed in our meta-analysis that self-reported workplace sitting of cross-sectional studies be positively associated with LBP in non-tradespeople but not in tradespeople, albeit in a limited number of studies. Some proponents of the “physical activity paradox” assert that sitting could be of health benefit in individuals who regularly engage in high occupational physical activity as sitting may allow some form of rest and recovery [ 40 , 41 ]. These indications in our review are, however, inconclusive and warrant further investigations in diverse occupational settings to ascertain these findings.…”

“…Thus, SB associations may also reflect plausible biomechanical or biological pathways explaining MSP conditions in those exposed to prolonged static sitting postures [ 36 – 38 ]. Paradoxically, however, in occupational groups such as tradespeople who engage in more labour-intensive manual work, SB may be a protective behaviour against MSP conditions and other chronic diseases [ 39 – 41 ].…”

Associations of Sedentary Time with Heart Rate and Heart Rate Variability in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

“…Studies should also utilize the gold standard techniques to measure ST (i.e., a thigh-worn monitor) and HRV (i.e., ECG with guideline-based processing and accounting for respiration rate). Other sources of potential heterogeneity that we were unable to disentangle may also be important future research directions such as preexisting CVD, domains and patterns of ST, and diurnal vs. nocturnal HRV measurement [67][68][69][70]. Finally, given that the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected lifestyle behaviors and mental health [71], future studies should investigate the role of the pandemic in the associations between ST and HRV.…”

The physical activity paradox: a longitudinal study of the implications for burnout

“…Some studies show that both physical activities do not interact and work independently (Holtermann et al 2021;Krause et al 2017). Other studies have shown that off-job physical activity protects blue-collar workers' physical health (Leino-Arjas et al 2004;Quinn et al 2021) or particularly white-collars' level of burnout (Bernaards et al 2006;Prince et al 2021). To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has investigated the impact of the combination of physical activity on and off the job on burnout.…”

“…These findings suggest that the simultaneous enactment of different physical activities alters their potential unique effects (cf. Prince et al 2021). Therefore, researchers should not restrict themselves to one domain-specific physical activity when studying possible positive effects following physical activity.…”