4.3 Article

A survey of sitting time among UK employees

Journal

OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE-OXFORD
Volume 64, Issue 7, Pages 497-502

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/occmed/kqu099

Keywords

Healthy lifestyles; health workplaces; occupational health services; physical activity; sedentary behavior; workplace health promotion

Funding

  1. New Dynamics of Ageing Programme (UK Economic and Social Research Council) [RES-353-250006]
  2. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/G008272/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. ESRC [ES/G008272/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Sedentary behaviour is a known risk factor for a wide range of chronic diseases. This major health risk is likely to increase given the increasingly sedentary nature of work. Aims To investigate the prevalence of sedentary behaviour in a sample of UK working-aged adults, across a range of employment sectors. Methods A cross-sectional survey conducted with organizations throughout the UK in the education, government administration, retail, telecommunications and service industry sectors. The questionnaire examined employee and organizational information, self-reported domain-specific sitting time, sleep and physical activity. Results A total of 1141 employees completed the questionnaire, of which 504 completed all aspects of the Domain-Specific Sitting Time Questionnaire for work day sitting. Work time sitting accounted for more than half of the total daily sitting time on a work day (54%). Significantly more time was reported sitting on a work day than time reported sleeping (P < 0.001). Males spent more time sitting at work and using a personal computer at home compared with females. Workers in the telecommunications industry had the highest sitting times. There were significant positive associations between sitting time and body mass index. Conclusions There is a pressing need for future workplace health interventions to reduce employee sitting times.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available