Roman P Kuster1,2, Maria Hagströmer3,4,5, Daniel Baumgartner6, Wilhelmus J A Grooten3,4. 1. Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. roman.kuster@alumni.ethz.ch. 2. IMES Institute of Mechanical Systems, School of Engineering, ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland. roman.kuster@alumni.ethz.ch. 3. Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Medical Unit Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy, Allied Health Professionals, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 5. Department of Occupational Therapy & Physiotherapy, Theme Women's Health and Allied Health Professionals, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 6. IMES Institute of Mechanical Systems, School of Engineering, ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sedentary Behaviour (SB) gets an increasing attention from ergonomics and public health due to its associated detrimental health effects. A large number of studies record SB with ActiGraph counts-per-minute cut-points, but we still lack valid information about what the cut-points tell us about office work. This study therefore analysed the concurrent and discriminant validity of commonly used cut-points to measure SB, activity level, and posture. METHODS: Thirty office workers completed four office tasks at three workplaces (conventional chair, activity-promoting chair, and standing desk) while wearing two ActiGraphs (waist and wrist). Indirect calorimetry and prescribed posture served as reference criteria. Generalized Estimation Equations analysed workplace and task effects on the activity level and counts-per-minute, and kappa statistics and ROC curves analysed the cut-point validity. RESULTS: The activity-promoting chair (p < 0.001, ES ≥ 0.66) but not the standing desk (p = 1.0) increased the activity level, and both these workplaces increased the waist (p ≤ 0.003, ES ≥ 0.63) but not the wrist counts-per-minute (p = 0.74) compared to the conventional chair. The concurrent and discriminant validity was higher for activity level (kappa: 0.52-0.56 and 0.38-0.45, respectively) than for SB and posture (kappa ≤0.35 and ≤ 0.19, respectively). Furthermore, the discriminant validity for activity level was higher for task effects (kappa: 0.42-0.48) than for workplace effects (0.13-0.24). CONCLUSIONS: ActiGraph counts-per-minute for waist and wrist placement were - independently of the chosen cut-point - a measure for activity level and not for SB or posture, and the cut-points performed better to detect task effects than workplace effects. Waist cut-points were most valid to measure the activity level in conventional seated office work, but they showed severe limitations for sit-stand desks. None of the placements was valid to detect the increased activity on the activity-promoting chair. Caution should therefore be paid when analysing the effect of workplace interventions on activity level with ActiGraph waist and wrist cut-points.
BACKGROUND: Sedentary Behaviour (SB) gets an increasing attention from ergonomics and public health due to its associated detrimental health effects. A large number of studies record SB with ActiGraph counts-per-minute cut-points, but we still lack valid information about what the cut-points tell us about office work. This study therefore analysed the concurrent and discriminant validity of commonly used cut-points to measure SB, activity level, and posture. METHODS: Thirty office workers completed four office tasks at three workplaces (conventional chair, activity-promoting chair, and standing desk) while wearing two ActiGraphs (waist and wrist). Indirect calorimetry and prescribed posture served as reference criteria. Generalized Estimation Equations analysed workplace and task effects on the activity level and counts-per-minute, and kappa statistics and ROC curves analysed the cut-point validity. RESULTS: The activity-promoting chair (p < 0.001, ES ≥ 0.66) but not the standing desk (p = 1.0) increased the activity level, and both these workplaces increased the waist (p ≤ 0.003, ES ≥ 0.63) but not the wrist counts-per-minute (p = 0.74) compared to the conventional chair. The concurrent and discriminant validity was higher for activity level (kappa: 0.52-0.56 and 0.38-0.45, respectively) than for SB and posture (kappa ≤0.35 and ≤ 0.19, respectively). Furthermore, the discriminant validity for activity level was higher for task effects (kappa: 0.42-0.48) than for workplace effects (0.13-0.24). CONCLUSIONS: ActiGraph counts-per-minute for waist and wrist placement were - independently of the chosen cut-point - a measure for activity level and not for SB or posture, and the cut-points performed better to detect task effects than workplace effects. Waist cut-points were most valid to measure the activity level in conventional seated office work, but they showed severe limitations for sit-stand desks. None of the placements was valid to detect the increased activity on the activity-promoting chair. Caution should therefore be paid when analysing the effect of workplace interventions on activity level with ActiGraph waist and wrist cut-points.
Authors: Rachel C Colley; Didier Garriguet; Ian Janssen; Cora L Craig; Janine Clarke; Mark S Tremblay Journal: Health Rep Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.796
Authors: John P Buckley; Alan Hedge; Thomas Yates; Robert J Copeland; Michael Loosemore; Mark Hamer; Gavin Bradley; David W Dunstan Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Charlotte L Edwardson; Joseph Henson; Stuart J H Biddle; Melanie J Davies; Kamlesh Khunti; Benjamin Maylor; Thomas Yates Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Carla F J Nooijen; Lena V Kallings; Victoria Blom; Örjan Ekblom; Yvonne Forsell; Maria M Ekblom Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Femke van Nassau; Josephine Y Chau; Jeroen Lakerveld; Adrian E Bauman; Hidde P van der Ploeg Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Roman P Kuster; Wilhelmus J A Grooten; Victoria Blom; Daniel Baumgartner; Maria Hagströmer; Örjan Ekblom Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 3.390