scholarly journals High Sedentary Behaviour and Low Physical Activity are Associated with Anxiety and Depression in Myanmar and Vietnam

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. 1251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Supa Pengpid ◽  
Karl Peltzer
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Anxiety And Depression ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
High Physical Activity ◽  
Chronic Disease Patients ◽  
General Physical ◽  
Activity Questionnaire

The study aimed to estimate independent and combined associations of sedentary behaviour and physical activity with anxiety and depression among chronic disease patients in Myanmar and Vietnam. The cross-sectional sample included 3201 chronic disease patients (median age 51 years, interquartile range 25) systematically recruited from primary care facilities in 2015. Sedentary time and physical activity were assessed with the General Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ). Overall, the prevalence of sedentary time per day was 51.3% < 4 h, 31.2% between 4 and 8 h, and 17.5% 8 or more hours a day), and 30.7% engaged in low physical activity, 50.0% moderate, and 23.6% high physical activity. The prevalence of anxiety and depression was 12.7% and 19.9%, respectively. In the final logistic regression model, adjusted for relevant confounders, higher sedentary time (≥8 h) did not increase the odds for anxiety or depression, but moderate to high physical activity decreased the odds for anxiety and depression. Combined regression analysis found that participants with both less than eight hours of sedentary time and moderate or high physical activity had significantly lower odds of having anxiety and depression. Findings suggest an independent and combined association between moderate or high physical activity and low sedentary time with anxiety and/or depression among chronic disease patients in Myanmar and Vietnam.

scholarly journals Sedentary behaviour among general practitioners: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Mayne ◽  
Nigel D. Hart ◽  
Neil Heron
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Sitting Time ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Cochrane Library ◽  
Activity Questionnaire

Abstract Background Sedentary behaviour is when someone is awake, in a sitting, lying or reclining posture and is an independent risk factor for multiple causes of morbidity and mortality. A dose-response relationship has been demonstrated, whereby increasing sedentary time corresponds with increasing mortality rate. This study aimed to identify current levels of sedentary behaviour among General Practitioners (GPs), by examining and synthesising how sedentary behaviour has been measured in the primary care literature. Methods A systematic review was conducted to identify studies relating to levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Searches were performed using Medline®, Embase®, PscycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, from inception of databases until January 2020, with a subsequent search of grey literature. Articles were assessed for quality and bias, with extraction of relevant data. Results The search criteria returned 1707 studies. Thirty four full texts were reviewed and 2 studies included in the final review. Both were cross-sectional surveys using self-reported estimation of sedentary time within the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Keohane et al. examined GP trainees and GP trainers in Ireland. 60% reported spending in excess of 7 h sitting each day, 24% between 4 and 7 h, and 16% less than or equal to 4 h. Suija et al. examined female GPs in Estonia. The mean reported daily sitting time was 6 h and 36 min, with 56% sitting for over 6 h per day. Both studies were of satisfactory methodological quality but had a high risk of bias. Conclusion There is a paucity of research examining current levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Objective data is needed to determine GPs’ current levels of sedentary behaviour, particularly in light of the increase in remote consulting as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

scholarly journals Patterns of objectively assessed sedentary time and physical activity among Japanese workers: a cross-sectional observational study

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e021690 ◽  
Author(s):  
Satoshi Kurita ◽  
Ai Shibata ◽  
Kaori Ishii ◽  
Mohammad Javad Koohsari ◽  
Neville Owen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Working Hours ◽  
Occupational Activity ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Job Type ◽  
Japanese Workers ◽  
Activity Types ◽  
Time Periods

ObjectivesTo examine patterns of sedentary behaviour and physical activity, among Japanese workers with differing occupational activity types.DesignA cross-sectional observational study in 2013–2015.SettingTwo local communities in Japan.ParticipantsFull-time workers aged 40–64 years (n=345; 55% men) and who lived in two cities.Main outcome measuresFrom accelerometer data for 7 days, mean overall sedentary time, prolonged bouts of sedentary time and light-and moderate-to vigorous-intensity of physical activity (LPA and MVPA) as a proportion of accelerometer wear time and number of breaks per sedentary hour were identified for four time periods: working hours, workdays, non-work hours and non-workdays. These sedentary behaviour and physical activity measures in the four time periods were examined among workers with four self-attributed occupational activity types (mainly sitting, standing, walking, and physical labour), adjusting for sociodemographic attributes. Diurnal patterns of sedentary behaviour, LPA, and MVPA were examined.ResultsIn working hours, those with a sitting job had significantly more total and prolonged sedentary time (total: p<0.001; prolonged: p<0.01) along with less LPA (p<0.001) and MVPA (p<0.001) and less frequent breaks (p<0.01), compared with those with the three more active job type. Similar differences by job type were found for the whole working day, but not for prolonged sedentary time and breaks. On non-working hours and days, differences in sedentary and physically active patterns by job type were not apparent.ConclusionsOccupational activity type is related to overall sedentary time and patterns on working days, but not to leisure-time sitting and activity patterns, which were similar across the sitting, standing, walking, and physical labour occupational activity types.

scholarly journals Dementia Patients Are More Sedentary and Less Physically Active than Age- and Sex-Matched Cognitively Healthy Older Adults

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 81-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yvonne A.W. Hartman ◽  
Esther G.A. Karssemeijer ◽  
Lisanne A.M. van Diepen ◽  
Marcel G.M. Olde Rikkert ◽  
Dick H.J. Thijssen
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Physical Activities ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Lower Percentage ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity ◽  
Bout Duration ◽  
Dementia Patients

Aims: The aim of this study was to examine physical activity and sedentary behaviour characteristics of ambulatory and community-dwelling patients with dementia compared to cognitively healthy age-, sex- and weight-matched controls. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we included community-dwelling dementia patients (n = 45, age 79.6 ± 5.9 years, Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 22.8 ± 3.2) and matched controls (n = 49, age 80.0 ± 7.7 years, MMSE 29.0 ± 1.2). Participants wore a wrist accelerometer for 7 days to assess sedentary time, sedentary bout duration and time spent in very light, light-to-moderate and moderate-to-vigorous physical activities. Results: Relative sedentary time and sedentary bout duration was significantly higher in dementia patients than in controls (median [interquartile range] 57% [49–68] vs. 55% [47–59] and 18.3 [16.4–21.1] min vs. 16.6 [15.3–18.4] min, p = 0.042 and p = 0.008, respectively). In addition, dementia patients spent a lower percentage of their waking time in light-to-moderate and moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activities (20% [15–23] vs. 22% [18–25] and 5% [2–10] vs. 10% [5–13], p = 0.017 and p = 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: We revealed that dementia patients are more sedentary and perform less physical activity than cognitively healthy controls. This may have clinically important consequences, given the observation that sedentary behaviour and little physical activity independently predict all-cause mortality and morbidity.

scholarly journals Sedentary Behaviour Among General Practitioners: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Mayne ◽  
Nigel D. Hart ◽  
Neil Heron
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Sitting Time ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Cochrane Library ◽  
Activity Questionnaire

Abstract BackgroundSedentary behaviour is when someone is awake, in a sitting, lying or reclining posture and is an independent risk factor for multiple causes of morbidity and mortality. A dose-response relationship has been demonstrated, whereby increasing sedentary time corresponds with increasing mortality rate. This study aimed to identify current levels of sedentary behaviour among General Practitioners (GPs), by examining and synthesising how sedentary behaviour has been measured in the primary care literature.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to identify studies relating to levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Searches were performed using Medline®, Embase®, PscycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, from inception of databases until January 2020, with a subsequent search of grey literature. Articles were assessed for quality and bias, with extraction of relevant data.ResultsThe search criteria returned 1707 studies. 34 full texts were reviewed and 2 studies included in the final review. Both were cross-sectional surveys using self-reported estimation of sedentary time within the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Keohane et al. examined GP trainees and GP trainers in Ireland. 60% reported spending in excess of 7 hours sitting each day, 24% between 4 and 7 hours, and 16% less than or equal to 4 hours. Suija et al. examined female GPs in Estonia. The mean reported daily sitting time was 6 hours and 36 minutes, with 56% sitting for over 6 hours per day. Both studies were of satisfactory methodological quality but had a high risk of bias.ConclusionThere is a paucity of research examining current levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Objective data is needed to determine GPs’ current levels of sedentary behaviour, particularly in light of the increase in remote consulting as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

scholarly journals Sedentary Behaviour Among General Practitioners: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Mayne ◽  
Nigel D. Hart ◽  
Neil Heron
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Sitting Time ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Cochrane Library ◽  
Activity Questionnaire

Abstract BackgroundSedentary behaviour is when someone is awake, in a sitting, lying or reclining posture and is an independent risk factor for multiple causes of morbidity and mortality. A dose-response relationship has been demonstrated, whereby increasing sedentary time corresponds with increasing mortality rate. This study aimed to identify current levels of sedentary behaviour among General Practitioners (GPs), by examining and synthesising how sedentary behaviour has been measured in the primary care literature.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to identify studies relating to levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Searches were performed using Medline®, Embase®, PscycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, from inception of databases until January 2020. Articles were assessed for quality and bias, with extraction of relevant data.ResultsThe search criteria returned 1707 studies. 34 full texts were reviewed and 2 studies included in the final review. Both were cross-sectional surveys using self-reported estimation of sedentary time within the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Keohane et al. examined GP trainees and GP trainers in Ireland. 60% reported spending in excess of 7 hours sitting each day, 24% between 4 and 7 hours, and 16% less than or equal to 4 hours. Suija et al. examined female GPs in Estonia. The mean reported daily sitting time was 6 hours and 36 minutes, with 56% sitting for over 6 hours per day. Both studies were of satisfactory methodological quality but had a high risk of bias.ConclusionThere is a paucity of research examining current levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Objective data is needed to determine GPs’ current levels of sedentary behaviour, particularly in light of the increase in remote consulting as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

scholarly journals Patterns and correlates of active commuting in adults with type 2 diabetes: cross-sectional evidence from UK Biobank

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e017132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine L Falconer ◽  
Ashley R Cooper ◽  
Ellen Flint
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Diabetes Diagnosis ◽  
Active Commuting ◽  
Uk Biobank ◽  
Cross Sectional

ObjectivesTo describe the active commuting (AC) patterns of adults with type 2 diabetes and how these relate to physical activity and sedentary behaviour in UK Biobank. Social and environmental correlates of AC will also be explored.DesignCross-sectional analysis of a cohort study.SettingsThis is a population cohort of over 500 000 people recruited from 22 centres across the UK. Participants aged between 37 and 73 years were recruited between 2006 and 2010.Participants6896 participants with a self-reported type 2 diabetes diagnosis who reported commuting to work and had complete covariate data were included in the analysis.Exposure measuresExposure measures were AC to work, measured as usual mode of transport.Outcome measuresOutcome measures were weekly minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA), hours/day of sedentary time and participation in active travel.ResultsAC (reporting walking or cycling to work only) was reported by 5.5% of participants, with the great majority using the car to commute (80%). AC was associated with an additional 73 (95% CI 10.8 to 134.9) and 105 (95% CI 41.7 to 167.2) weekly minutes of MVPA for men and women, respectively. AC was associated with reduced sedentary time (β −1.1, 95% CI −1.6 to –0.7 hours/day for men; and β −0.8, 95% CI −1.2 to –0.3 hours/day for women). Deprivation and distance from home to work were identified as correlates of AC behaviour.ConclusionsRates of AC are very low in adults with type 2 diabetes. However, AC offers a potentially sustainable solution to increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary behaviour. Therefore, strategies to improve the environment and encourage AC may help to increase population levels of physical activity and reduce the disease burden associated with type 2 diabetes.

scholarly journals Are context-specific measures of parental-reported physical activity and sedentary behaviour associated with accelerometer data in 2–9-year-old European children?

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 860-868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Verbestel ◽  
Stefaan De Henauw ◽  
Karin Bammann ◽  
Gianvincenzo Barba ◽  
Charalambos Hadjigeorgiou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Sports Participation ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Accelerometer Data ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Context Specific ◽  
Outdoor Playtime

AbstractObjectiveThe aim of the present study was to investigate if context-specific measures of parental-reported physical activity and sedentary behaviour are associated with objectively measured physical activity and sedentary time in children.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingSeven European countries taking part in the IDEFICS (Identification and Prevention of Dietary- and Lifestyle-induced Health Effects in Children and Infants) study.SubjectsData were analysed from 2–9-year-old children (n 5982) who provided both parental-reported and accelerometer-derived physical activity/sedentary behaviour measures. Parents reported their children’s daily screen-time, weekly sports participation and daily outdoor playtime by means of the Outdoor Playtime Checklist (OPC) and Outdoor Playtime Recall Questions (OPRQ).ResultsSports participation, OPC- and OPRQ-derived outdoor play were positively associated with accelerometer-derived physical activity. Television viewing and computer use were positively associated with accelerometer-derived sedentary time. All parental-reported measures that were significantly associated with accelerometer outcomes explained only a minor part of the variance in accelerometer-derived physical activity or sedentary time.ConclusionsParental-reported measures of physical activity and sedentary behaviour are not useful as a proxy for 2–9-year-old children’s physical activity and sedentary time. Findings do not preclude the use of context-specific measures but imply that conclusions should be limited to the context-specific behaviours that are actually measured. Depending on the aim of the study, future research should carefully consider the choice of measurements, including the use of subjective or objective measures of the behaviour of interest or a combination of both.

scholarly journals Assessment of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in bachelors of computer science students using global physical activity questionnaire version 2: a cross-sectional study

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. 3237
Author(s):  
Juhi Nilesh Shah ◽  
Aditi Ketkar Berry
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Computer Science ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Science Students ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Global Physical Activity Questionnaire ◽  
Study Participants ◽  
Activity Questionnaire

Background: Physical activity has been determined as primary prevention strategy against 35 chronic conditions. Lack of physical activity, improper diet and increase in the use of computer has various health hazards. Considering that the bachelor of computer science students will mostly have sedentary work profile, once they enter the professional world, the objective of the present study was to assess their physical activity level using global physical activity questionnaire (GPAQ) version 2.Methods: A cross sectional study was conducted on 355 participants, 244 males and 111 females, from an institution catering bachelors of computer science course using GPAQ questionnaire. The data was analyzed to see if they meet the criteria set by World Health organization (WHO) and were classified into categories on basis of MET minute/week. The average time spent in sitting position was also calculated.Results: At work, 19.15% study participants were moderately active; in travel domain 64.5% were active, in leisure domain 43.94% were vigorously while 41.4% were moderately active. 73.23% of study participants met the WHO set criteria. 26.76% participants were inactive, 62.53% low active, 10.14% moderate active while only 0.81% was highly active. Average time spent in sitting was around 9 hours.Conclusions: Even though 73.23% of study participants met the criteria, most of the participants had low level of physical activity, thus there is huge scope for improvement in it. They also need to be educated regarding the risks of sedentary behaviour which will further help to reduce the hazards related to physical inactivity.

scholarly journals Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour in People with Myasthenia Gravis: A Cross-Sectional Study

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Tahlia Alsop ◽  
Katrina Williams ◽  
Sjaan Gomersall
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Myasthenia Gravis ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Activity Levels ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Balance Confidence ◽  
Health And Wellbeing

Background: Despite improvements in the medical management of myasthenia gravis (MG) in recent years, patients continue to report poor health and wellbeing outcomes such as high levels of fatigue, reduced quality of life (QoL), walking limitation and lowered balance confidence. Physical activity has been shown to be associated with these outcomes in other populations, however, there has been limited research in adults with MG. Objective: To describe physical activity and sedentary behaviour in adults with MG and to explore associations between these behaviours and fatigue, QoL, balance confidence and walking limitation. Methods: A self-report online survey was used to assess physical activity, sedentary behaviour, fatigue, QoL, balance confidence and walking limitation in adults with MG. Multiple linear regression was used to examine associations and descriptive statistics were used to analyse participant characteristics, physical activity, and sedentary behaviour. Results: Eighty-five adults with MG were included (mean age 48±16 years). Over half of participants (n = 53, 62.4%) reported sufficient physical activity to meet public health guidelines. Participants reported an average of 9 h/day of sedentary time (mean 9.0±3.5). Physical activity and fatigue (R2 = 0.196), QoL (R2 = 0.330), walking limitation (R2 = 0.305) and balance confidence (R2 = 0.304) were significantly (p <  0.05) and positively correlated, with no associations found for sedentary behaviour. When patterns of physical activity and sedentary behaviour were combined, lower fatigue (R2 = 0.213), higher QoL (R2 = 0.364), reduced walking limitation (R2 = 0.341) and higher balance confidence (R2 = 0.279) was observed in patients who had greater physical activity levels (>  150 mins/week) and lower sedentary time (<  10 h/day). Conclusions: Higher physical activity and lower sedentary behaviour is associated with favorable health and wellbeing outcomes in adults with MG. Further research is required to ascertain whether these behaviours may be an appropriate target intervention to improve outcomes in this population.

scholarly journals Sedentary Behaviour Among General Practitioners: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Mayne ◽  
Nigel D. Hart ◽  
Neil Heron
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Sitting Time ◽  
Dose Response Relationship ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Activity Questionnaire

Abstract BackgroundSedentary behaviour is when someone is awake, in a sitting, lying or reclining posture and is an independent risk factor for multiple causes of morbidity and mortality. A dose-response relationship has been demonstrated, whereby increasing sedentary time corresponds with increasing mortality rate. This study aimed to identify current levels of sedentary behaviour among General Practitioners (GPs), by examining and synthesising how sedentary behaviour has been defined and measured in the primary care literature.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to identify studies relating to levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Searches were performed using Medline®, Embase®, PscycINFO and Web of Science, from inception of databases until January 2020. Articles were assessed for quality and bias, with extractionof relevant data.ResultsThe search criteria returned 1707 studies. 34 full texts were reviewed and 2 studies included in the final review. Both were cross-sectional surveys using self-reported estimation of sedentary time within the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ).Keohane et al. examined GP trainees and GP trainers in Ireland. 60% reported spending in excess of 7 hours sitting each day, 24% between 4 and 7 hours, and 16% less than or equal to 4 hours. Suija et al. examined female GPs in Estonia. The mean reported daily sitting time was 6 hours and 36 minutes, with 56% sitting for over 6 hours per day. Both studies were of low methodological quality and high risk of bias.ConclusionThere is a paucity of research examining current levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Objective data is needed to determine GPs’ current levels of sedentary behaviour, in order to identify ways of reducing this, if possible, as well as facilitating better GP education for patients regarding reducing sedentary behaviour.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document