Elin Johansson1, Svend Erik Mathiassen2, Charlotte Lund Rasmusse3,4, David M Hallman2. 1. Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Department of Occupational Health Sciences and Psychology, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden. Elin.Johansson@hig.se. 2. Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Department of Occupational Health Sciences and Psychology, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden. 3. National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Section of Social Medicine, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gendered patterns of physical activity behaviours may help explaining health inequalities between men and women. However, evidence on such patterns in the working population is sparse. This study aimed at documenting and comparing compositions of sitting, standing and moving at work and during leisure among male and female office workers of different age. METHODS: Sitting (including lying), standing and moving were measured using accelerometry for, on average, four working days in 55 male and 57 female Swedish office workers. Behaviours were described in terms of time spent in four exhaustive categories: sitting in short (< 30 min) and long (≥30 min) bouts, standing, and moving. In a compositional data analysis approach, isometric log-ratios (ilr) were calculated for time sitting relative to non-sitting, time in short relative to long sitting bouts, and time in standing relative to moving. Differences between genders (men vs. women), domains (work vs. leisure), and according to age were examined for each ilr using ANOVA. RESULTS: At work, time spent sitting in short bouts, sitting in long bouts, standing, and moving was, on average, 29, 43, 21 and 7% among men, and 28, 38, 26 and 7% among women. Corresponding proportions during leisure were 34, 27, 27 and 13% among men and 28, 27, 32 and 13% among women. Men spent more time sitting relative to non-sitting ([Formula: see text] =0.04, p = 0.03) than women, and less time standing relative to moving ([Formula: see text] =0.07, p = 0.01). At work compared to during leisure, both genders spent more time sitting relative to non-sitting ([Formula: see text] =0.47, p < 0.01); within sitting more time was spent in long relative to short sitting bouts ([Formula: see text] =0.26, p < 0.01), and within non-sitting, more time was spent standing than moving ([Formula: see text] =0.12, p < 0.01). Older workers spent less of their non-sitting time moving than younger workers ([Formula: see text] =0.07, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Male office workers spent more time sitting relative to non-sitting than female workers, and more time moving relative to standing. Both genders were sitting more at work than during leisure. Older workers moved less than younger. These workers could likely benefit from interventions to reduce or break up prolonged sitting time, preferably by moving more.
BACKGROUND: Gendered patterns of physical activity behaviours may help explaining health inequalities between men and women. However, evidence on such patterns in the working population is sparse. This study aimed at documenting and comparing compositions of sitting, standing and moving at work and during leisure among male and female office workers of different age. METHODS: Sitting (including lying), standing and moving were measured using accelerometry for, on average, four working days in 55 male and 57 female Swedish office workers. Behaviours were described in terms of time spent in four exhaustive categories: sitting in short (< 30 min) and long (≥30 min) bouts, standing, and moving. In a compositional data analysis approach, isometric log-ratios (ilr) were calculated for time sitting relative to non-sitting, time in short relative to long sitting bouts, and time in standing relative to moving. Differences between genders (men vs. women), domains (work vs. leisure), and according to age were examined for each ilr using ANOVA. RESULTS: At work, time spent sitting in short bouts, sitting in long bouts, standing, and moving was, on average, 29, 43, 21 and 7% among men, and 28, 38, 26 and 7% among women. Corresponding proportions during leisure were 34, 27, 27 and 13% among men and 28, 27, 32 and 13% among women. Men spent more time sitting relative to non-sitting ([Formula: see text] =0.04, p = 0.03) than women, and less time standing relative to moving ([Formula: see text] =0.07, p = 0.01). At work compared to during leisure, both genders spent more time sitting relative to non-sitting ([Formula: see text] =0.47, p < 0.01); within sitting more time was spent in long relative to short sitting bouts ([Formula: see text] =0.26, p < 0.01), and within non-sitting, more time was spent standing than moving ([Formula: see text] =0.12, p < 0.01). Older workers spent less of their non-sitting time moving than younger workers ([Formula: see text] =0.07, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Male office workers spent more time sitting relative to non-sitting than female workers, and more time moving relative to standing. Both genders were sitting more at work than during leisure. Older workers moved less than younger. These workers could likely benefit from interventions to reduce or break up prolonged sitting time, preferably by moving more.
Authors: Viktoria Wahlström; David Olsson; Fredrik Öhberg; Tommy Olsson; Lisbeth Slunga Järvholm Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: David M Hallman; Leticia Bergamin Januario; Svend Erik Mathiassen; Marina Heiden; Sven Svensson; Gunnar Bergström Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Lisa-Marie Larisch; Emil Bojsen-Møller; Carla F J Nooijen; Victoria Blom; Maria Ekblom; Örjan Ekblom; Daniel Arvidsson; Jonatan Fridolfsson; David M Hallman; Svend Erik Mathiassen; Rui Wang; Lena V Kallings Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Heli Kiema-Junes; Aino Saarinen; Raija Korpelainen; Maarit Kangas; Leena Ala-Mursula; Riitta Pyky; Mirka Hintsanen Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 2.306
Authors: Luiz Augusto Brusaca; Dechristian França Barbieri; Svend Erik Mathiassen; Andreas Holtermann; Ana Beatriz Oliveira Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 3.390