Percentage-Method Improves Properties of Workers' Sitting- and Walking-Time Questionnaire.
ABSTRACT: Does asking for the percentage of time spent sitting during work (P-method) instead of asking for the absolute length of time spent sitting (T-method) improve properties of the workers' sitting- and walking-time questionnaire (WSWQ)? The purpose of this study was to investigate whether questioning technique influences test-retest reliability and criterion validity of the WSWQ.Sixty-five Japanese workers completed each version of the WSWQ in random order. Both questionnaires assessed quantities of time spent sitting or walking (including standing) during work time, non-working time on a workday, and anytime on a non-workday. Participants wore the thigh-worn inclinometer (activPAL) as criterion measure. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Spearman's ? were used for the analyses.For all three domains, values of reliability and validity with the P-method tended to be higher than with the T-method: ICC values ranged from 0.48-0.85 for the T-method and from 0.71-0.85 for the P-method; Spearman's ? values ranged from 0.25-0.58 for the T-method and from 0.42-0.65 for the P-method. The validities with both methods on a workday (0.51-0.58 for the T-method and 0.56-0.65 for the P-method) were higher than validities on a non-workday (0.25-0.45 for the T-method and 0.42-0.60 for the P-method). In post-survey interviews, 48 participants (77%) chose the P-method as their preferred questioning style.The study revealed that the P-method WSWQ had better reliability, validity, and ease of answering than the T-method, suggesting that the P-method can improve properties of the WSWQ and consequently advance the quality of epidemiological surveys in this field.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Most sedentary behavior measures focus on occupational or leisure-time sitting. Our aim was to develop a comprehensive measure of adult sedentary behavior and establish its measurement properties.<h4>Method</h4>The SIT-Q was developed through expert review (n = 7), cognitive interviewing (n = 11) and pilot testing (n = 34). A convenience sample of 82 adults from Calgary, Alberta, Canada, participated in the measurement property study. Test-retest reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) comparing two administrations of the SIT-Q conducted one month apart. Convergent validity was established using Spearman's rho, by comparing the SIT-Q estimates of sedentary behaviour with values derived from a 7-Day Activity Diary.<h4>Results</h4>The SIT-Q exhibited good face validity and acceptability during pilot testing. Within the measurement property study, the ICCs for test-retest reliability ranged from 0.31 for leisure-time computer use to 0.86 for occupational sitting. Total daily sitting demonstrated substantial correlation (ICC = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.49, 0.78). In terms of convergent validity, correlations varied from 0.19 for sitting during meals to 0.76 for occupational sitting. For total daily sitting, estimates derived from the SIT-Q and 7 Day Activity Diaries were moderately correlated (? = 0.53, p < 0.01).<h4>Conclusion</h4>The SIT-Q has acceptable measurement properties for use in epidemiologic studies.
Project description:UNLABELLED:Developing interventions to reduce sedentary behavior in the workplace is an important public health priority. Furthermore, research is needed to determine whether different approaches to breaking up prolonged sitting during the workday are equally feasible and effective. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine whether varying the frequency and duration of activity breaks during the workday would differentially impact sedentary behavior and health outcomes. Inactive females (N = 49) working full-time sedentary jobs were recruited for this parallel-group randomized trial. Participants were randomly assigned to take short, frequent breaks from sitting (1-2 min every half hour; SB) or longer, planned breaks from sitting (two 15-minute breaks per workday; LB) during each workday across an 8-week intervention. Sedentary time and health outcomes were assessed at baseline and post-intervention. The study ran from March 2014-June 2015. Results showed sedentary time during the workday decreased significantly in the SB group (- 35.6 min; d = - 0.75; p = 0.03), but did not change in the LB group (+ 4.5 min; d = 0.12). Participants in the SB group also demonstrated small-to-moderate declines in total cholesterol (d = - 0.33; p = 0.10), triglycerides (d = - 0.38; p = 0.06) and fasting blood glucose (d = - 0.29; p = 0.01) from pre to post-intervention. Health outcomes did not change in the LB group. This study demonstrated that taking short, frequent breaks from sitting during the workday is a feasible and effective approach for reducing sedentary time at work. These results have implications for the development of public health messages addressing sedentary behavior, and inform future interventions to reduce sedentary time in the workplace. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02609438.
Project description:BACKGROUND: Breaks in prolonged sitting may have beneficial cardiometabolic and musculoskeletal health outcomes. Desk-based work settings are an important environment to promote and support breaks in sitting time. However, few studies have reported the psychometric properties of self-report measures to assess the frequency and duration of breaks from sitting. This study examined the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of the Workplace Sitting Breaks Questionnaire (SITBRQ) designed to assess frequency and duration of breaks in sitting within desk-based work settings. METHODS: To assess the concurrent validity, a sample of 147 desk-based employees completed the SITBRQ and wore an Actigraph GT1M accelerometer for seven consecutive days. To establish test-retest reliability, SITBRQ was administered on two separate occasions 7-14 days apart to a separate sample of 96 desk-based employees. RESULTS: A low relative agreement with accelerometry (Spearman's r?=?0.24 [95% CI 0.07-0.40]) was determined for self-reported frequency, but not for the duration of sitting breaks (Spearman's r?=?0.05 [95% CI -0.12-0.22]). Adequate reliability was determined for both self-reported frequency (Spearman's r?=?0.71 [95% CI 0.59-0.79], Cohen's kappa?=?0.74 [95% CI 0.64-0.84]) and duration of sitting breaks (Spearman's r?=?0.59 [95% CI 0.45-0.71], Cohen's kappa?=?0.61 [95% CI 0.38-0.85]). CONCLUSION: SITBRQ may be used for assessment of the frequency of sitting breaks within desk-based work settings with validity and reliability similar to other self-reports in the field of sedentary behaviour research. However, until adequately improved and re-evaluated, it should not be used to collect data about the duration of breaks in sitting time.
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is now a body of evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce workplace sitting time. However, there has been limited reporting of how such interventions may impact behaviour both during and outside of work. Sitting, standing and stepping changes following a workplace intervention were examined across five timeframes (work time on work days; non-work time on work days; work days; non-work days; overall (i.e. work and non-work time on all days)), and the relationships between changes during and outside of work was assessed. METHODS:The cluster-randomised controlled trial, 'Stand Up Victoria', delivered a multi-component workplace-delivered intervention that successfully reduced workplace and overall sitting time (relative to controls). Separately, over the five timeframes, changes in device (activPAL3)-assessed outcomes - sitting; prolonged sitting (?30?min bouts); standing; and, stepping - were compared between intervention (n?=?114) and controls (n?=?84), along with the time-course of sitting changes during work hours, using mixed models. The potential relationships of changes during work with changes outside of work were examined using compositional data analysis. RESULTS:On workdays, intervention participants significantly (p?<?0.05) improved their activity profile relative to controls, with reduced sitting (-?117?min/8-h workday, 95% CI: -?141, -?93) and prolonged sitting (-?77?min/8?h workday, 95% CI: -?101, -?52); increased standing (114?min/8?h workday, 95% CI: 92, 136) and maintenance of stepping (3?min/8?h workday, 95% CI: -?7, 11, p?=?0.576). Effects were nearly identical for time at work; similar but slightly weaker for overall; and, small and non-significant outside of work on workdays and non-work days. Improvements occurred at all times, but not equally, during work hours (p?<?0.001). Correlations between changes during and outside of work on workdays were very weak in both the intervention group (r?=?-?0.07) and controls (r?=?-?0.09). CONCLUSIONS:Sitting time was reduced almost exclusively during work hours (via replacement with standing), with reductions evident during all working hours, to varying degrees. There was no evidence of compensation, with minimal change in activity outside of work, in response to changes in activity at work. Future interventions may benefit from exploring how best to elicit change throughout the whole day, and across work and non-work domains. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials register (ACTRN12611000742976) on 15 July 2011.
Project description:This study evaluated the effects of sit-stand desks on workers' objectively and subjectively assessed sitting, physical activity, and productivity. This quasi-experimental study involved one intervention group (n = 16) and one comparison group (n = 15). Participants were call center employees from two job-matched teams at a large telecommunications company in Sydney, Australia (45% female, 33 ± 11 years old). Intervention participants received a sit-stand desk, brief training, and daily e-mail reminders to stand up more frequently for the first 2 weeks post-installation. Control participants carried out their usual work duties at seated desks. Primary outcomes were workday sitting and physical activity assessed using ActivPAL or ActiGraph devices and self-report questionnaires. Productivity outcomes were company-specific objective metrics (e.g., hold time, talking time, absenteeism) and subjective measures. Measurements were taken at baseline, 1, 4, and 19 weeks post-installation. Intervention participants increased standing time after 1 week (+ 73 min/workday (95% CI: 22, 123)) and 4 weeks (+ 96 min/workday (95% CI: 41, 150)) post-intervention, while control group showed no changes. Between-group differences in standing time at one and 4 weeks were + 78 (95% CI: 9, 147) and + 95 min/workday (95% CI: 15, 174), respectively. Sitting time in the intervention group changed by - 64 (95% CI: - 125, - 2), - 76 (95% CI: - 142, - 11), and - 100 min/workday (95% CI: - 172, - 29) at 1, 4, and 19 weeks post-installation, respectively, while the control group showed no changes. No changes were observed in productivity outcomes from baseline to follow-up in either group. Sit-stand desks can increase standing time at work in call center workers without reducing productivity.
Project description:This feasibility study evaluated the effects of an individual-level intervention to target office workers total and prolonged sedentary behaviour during working hours, using an e-health smartphone application. A three-arm (Prompt-30 or 60 min Intervention arm and a No-Prompt Comparison arm), quasi-randomised intervention was conducted over 12 weeks. Behavioural outcomes (worktime sitting, standing, stepping, prolonged sitting, and physical activity) were monitored using accelerometers and anthropometrics measured at baseline, 6 weeks and 12 weeks. Cardiometabolic measures were taken at baseline and 12 weeks. Fifty-six office workers (64% female) completed baseline assessments. The Prompt-60 arm was associated with a reduction in occupational sitting time at 6 (-46.8 min/8 h workday [95% confidence interval = -86.4, -6.6], <i>p</i> < 0.05) and 12 weeks (-69.6 min/8 h workday [-111.0, -28.2], <i>p</i> < 0.05) relative to the No-Prompt Comparison arm. Sitting was primarily replaced with standing in both arms (<i>p</i> > 0.05). Both Intervention arms reduced time in prolonged sitting bouts at 12 weeks (Prompt-30: -27.0 [-99.0, 45.0]; Prompt-60: -25.8 [-98.4, 47.4] min/8 h workday; both <i>p</i> > 0.05). There were no changes in steps or cardiometabolic risk. Findings highlight the potential of a smartphone e-health application, suggesting 60 min prompts may present an optimal frequency to reduce total occupational sedentary behaviour.
Project description:BACKGROUND: Accurate measures of physical activity are highly needed. We evaluated the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the self-report Activity Questionnaire for Adults and Adolescents (AQuAA). The AQuAA is a commonly used questionnaire in Dutch youth. METHODS: In the test-retest reliability study, 53 adolescents and 58 adults completed the AQuAA twice, with an interval of two weeks. In the validity study, 33 adolescents and 47 adults wore an accelerometer (Actigraph) during two weeks, and subsequently completed the AQuAA. RESULTS: In adolescents the test-retest reliability was fair to moderate (intraclass correlations (ICCs) ranging from 0.30 to 0.59). In adults the test-retest reliability was fair to moderate for the time spent on sedentary, light and moderate intensity activities (ICCs ranging from 0.49 to 0.60), but poor for time spent on vigorous activities (ICC = -0.005). The correlations between the AQuAA and Actigraph were low and nonsignificant. Compared with the Actigraph, time spent on all physical activities was significantly higher according to the questionnaire (except for light intensity activities in adolescents), while time spent on sedentary behaviours was significantly lower. CONCLUSION: Reliability of the AQuAA is fair to moderate. The validity of the AQuAA compared to an accelerometer is poor. Both adolescents and adults underestimate the time spent on sedentary behaviours and overestimate the time spent on physical activities.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Previous questionnaires targeting older adults' sedentary time have underestimated total sedentary time, possibly by not including all relevant specific sedentary behaviors. The current study aimed to investigate the criterion validity and test-retest reliability of a new questionnaire assessing a comprehensive set of sedentary behaviors. Additionally, we examined whether the criterion validity of the questionnaire differed according to age, gender and educational level.<h4>Methods</h4>A sample of home-dwelling Belgian older adults (>64 years, n?=?508) completed a newly-developed questionnaire assessing twelve specific sedentary behaviors and wore an accelerometer for seven consecutive days as criterion measure. A subsample (n?=?28) completed the questionnaire a second time to examine test-retest reliability. Data collection occurred between September 2010 and October 2012.<h4>Results</h4>Correlational analyses examining self-reported total sitting time and accelerometer-derived sedentary time yielded a Spearman's ? of 0.30. Using the Bland-Altman regression procedure, self-reported total sitting time underestimated accelerometer-derived sedentary time by -82 minutes/day for a participant with an average level of sedentary time (539 minutes/day). Corresponding 95% limits of agreement were wide (-364, 200 minutes/day). Better, but still not ideal, validity findings were observed in the younger, male and tertiary-educated subgroups. Acceptable test-retest reliability (ICC?>?0.70) was found for total sitting time, TV viewing, computer use, and driving a car.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Validity for older adults' self-reported total sitting time against accelerometer-derived sedentary time was not strong, but comparable to previous studies. However, underestimation of total sedentary time was lower compared to previous studies, possibly explained by the inclusion of additional specific sedentary behaviors. Further research is needed to develop self-report tools and objective criterion measures that accurately measure engagement in (specific) sedentary behavior(s) among different subgroups of the older population.
Project description:<h4>Objectives</h4>To evaluate the impact of a multicomponent intervention (Stand More AT (SMArT) Work) designed to reduce sitting time on short (three months), medium (six months), and longer term (12 months) changes in occupational, daily, and prolonged sitting, standing, and physical activity, and physical, psychological, and work related health.<h4>Design</h4>Cluster two arm randomised controlled trial.<h4>Setting</h4>National Health Service trust, England.<h4>Participants</h4>37 office clusters (146 participants) of desk based workers: 19 clusters (77 participants) were randomised to the intervention and 18 (69 participants) to control.<h4>Interventions</h4>The intervention group received a height adjustable workstation, a brief seminar with supporting leaflet, workstation instructions with sitting and standing targets, feedback on sitting and physical activity at three time points, posters, action planning and goal setting booklet, self monitoring and prompt tool, and coaching sessions (month 1 and every three months thereafter). The control group continued with usual practice.<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>The primary outcome was occupational sitting time (thigh worn accelerometer). Secondary outcomes were objectively measured daily sitting, prolonged sitting (?30 minutes), and standing time, physical activity, musculoskeletal problems, self reported work related health (job performance, job satisfaction, work engagement, occupational fatigue, sickness presenteeism, and sickness absenteeism), cognitive function, and self reported psychological measures (mood and affective states, quality of life) assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months. Data were analysed using generalised estimating equation models, accounting for clustering.<h4>Results</h4>A significant difference between groups (in favour of the intervention group) was found in occupational sitting time at 12 months (-83.28 min/workday, 95% confidence interval -116.57 to -49.98, P=0.001). Differences between groups (in favour of the intervention group compared with control) were observed for occupational sitting time at three months (-50.62 min/workday, -78.71 to -22.54, P<0.001) and six months (-64.40 min/workday, -97.31 to -31.50, P<0.001) and daily sitting time at six months (-59.32 min/day, -88.40 to -30.25, P<0.001) and 12 months (-82.39 min/day, -114.54 to -50.26, P=0.001). Group differences (in favour of the intervention group compared with control) were found for prolonged sitting time, standing time, job performance, work engagement, occupational fatigue, sickness presenteeism, daily anxiety, and quality of life. No differences were seen for sickness absenteeism.<h4>Conclusions</h4>SMArT Work successfully reduced sitting time over the short, medium, and longer term, and positive changes were observed in work related and psychological health.<h4>Trial registration</h4>Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10967042.
Project description:This study was conducted to determine whether installation of sit-stand desks (SSDs) could lead to decreased sitting time during the workday among sedentary office workers.A randomized cross-over trial was conducted from January to April, 2012 at a business in Minneapolis. 28 (nine men, 26 full-time) sedentary office workers took part in a 4 week intervention period which included the use of SSDs to gradually replace 50% of sitting time with standing during the workday. Physical activity was the primary outcome. Mood, energy level, fatigue, appetite, dietary intake, and productivity were explored as secondary outcomes.The intervention reduced sitting time at work by 21% (95% CI 18%-25%) and sedentary time by 4.8 min/work-hr (95% CI 4.1-5.4 min/work-hr). For a 40 h work-week, this translates into replacement of 8 h of sitting time with standing and sedentary time being reduced by 3.2 h. Activity level during non-work hours did not change. The intervention also increased overall sense of well-being, energy, decreased fatigue, had no impact on productivity, and reduced appetite and dietary intake. The workstations were popular with the participants.The SSD intervention was successful in increasing work-time activity level, without changing activity level during non-work hours.