scholarly journals Exploration of sedentary behaviour among general practitioners: A cross-sectional study

BJGP Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. BJGPO.2021.0196
Author(s):  
Richard S Mayne ◽  
Nigel D Hart ◽  
Mark A Tully ◽  
Jason J Wilson ◽  
Jan C Brønd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sitting Time ◽  
Health It ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cross Sectional Design ◽  
Study Participants

BackgroundSedentary behaviour, which may have increased among GPs due to increasing use of telemedicine, is associated with many illnesses and increased all-cause mortality.AimTo explore levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs and General Practice Specialty Trainees (GPSTs).Design & settingSequential, cross-sectional design (initial online sedentary behaviour questionnaire, subsequent thigh-worn accelerometer sub-study) of GPs and GPSTs in Northern Ireland.MethodSelf-reported questionnaire data were aggregated and compared with device-measured accelerometry data.ResultsData from 353 participants (17.7% of GPs and GPSTs in Northern Ireland) revealed doctors in general practice self-reported higher workday sedentary time (10.33 (SD =2.97) hours) than those in secondary care (7.9 (SD =3.43) hours) (MD 2.43 hours; P<0.001). An active workstation (eg, sit-stand desk), was used by 5.6% of participants in general practice, while 86.0% of those without one would consider using one in future. Active workstation users self-reported lower workday sedentary time (7.88 (SD =3.2) hours) than non-users (10.47 (SD =2.88) hours) (MD –2.58 hours, P=0.001). Accelerometer sub-study participants underestimated their workday sedentary time by 0.17 hours (95% CI –1.86, 2.20; P=0.865), and non-workday sedentary time by 2.67 hours (95% CI 0.99, 4.35; P=0.003). Most GPs (80.7%) reported increased workday sitting time compared to prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, while 87.0% would prefer less workday sitting time.ConclusionGPs have high levels of workday sedentary time, which may be detrimental to their health. It is imperative to develop methods to address sedentary behaviour among GPs on workdays, both for their own health and the health of their patients.

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 Is device-based total and domain-specific sedentary behaviour associated with psychological distress in Flemish workers?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katrien De Cocker ◽  
Margo Ketels ◽  
Jason A Bennie ◽  
Els Clays
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
General Health Questionnaire ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Physically Active ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Domain Specific

Abstract Background There is increasing interest in the association between psychological distress and time spent in sedentary behaviour (e.g. sitting), a highly prevalent behaviour in modern society. The limited evidence is mixed and mainly based on studies using self-reported sedentary time. Few studies have investigated device-based total sedentary time in its association with distress. None, however, have examined device-based domain-specific sedentary time in relation to psychological distress. The aim of this study was to investigate whether device-based total and domain-specific sedentary behaviour were associated with psychological distress. Methods Flemish employees (n = 401; 20–64 years; 42.6% male; 83.6% had a ‘physically active occupation’) of seven organizations in service and production sectors participated. Sedentary behaviour (exposure) was assessed by two Axivity AX3 accelerometers (one placed on the thigh and one placed between the shoulders) for two to four consecutive working days. Based on diary completion, domain-specific sedentary behaviour (leisure vs. work) was assessed. The 12-item General Health Questionnaire was used to assess psychological distress (outcome). Adjusted hierarchical multiple regression models were conducted to report on the associations between total and domain-specific sedentary behaviour and psychological distress. Results About 35% of the sample had high levels of distress and average total sedentary time was 7.2 h/day. Device-based total sedentary behaviour [B = −0.009, 95% confidence interval (CI), −0.087 to 0.068], leisure-time (B = 0.001, 95% CI, −0.017 to 0.018) and work-related (B = 0.004, 95% CI, −0.006 to 0.015) sedentary behaviour were not significantly associated with psychological distress. Conclusion This cross-sectional study examining the association between device-based total and domain-specific sedentary behaviour and psychological distress among employees showed a lack of significant findings.

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 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 Sedentary Behaviour among Urban Civil Servants in Eastern Part of Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Region, Ethiopia

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Markos Yohannes Baye
Keyword(s):  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Premature Mortality ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Civil Servants ◽  
Sitting Time ◽  
Southern Ethiopia ◽  
Cluster Sampling ◽  
Physical And Mental Health ◽  
Sedentary Activity ◽  
Cross Sectional

Background. Active lifestyle is a determining factor for functional and clinical health that protects and maintains both physical and mental health of an individual, whereas sedentary lifestyle is a contrary vital cause for higher premature mortality, heart disease, diabetics, and poorer quality of life. This study is aimed at determining the amount of time spent on sedentary activity and identifying sedentary behaviours frequently practiced by civil servants in Southern Ethiopia in 2015. Methods. It was a cross-sectional study which employed both qualitative and quantitative approach. A stratified cluster sampling method was used to select 375 office workers (222 men and 153 women) from Hawassa, Wolayta Soddo, and Dilla ranging from 18-65 years old. Data were collected using harmonized self-reporting LASSA (Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam) questionnaires and prevalence estimates of mean sedentary time in each 12 activities per day were determined. Descriptive and inferential statistics such as Independent t -test, Uni-variate ANOVA, and Person’s correlation were used to analyze association and predictability of IV on DV variables. Result. The total mean time spent sitting per day was 13.39 h which was 81.5% of weak time. Collectively, screen time was dominant (6.08). About 70.7%, 23.7%, 4.8%, and 0.8% of respondents were levelled very high, high, moderate, and less sedentary, respectively. In general, women accounted higher sedentary level (96.1%) than men (93.3%) in sedentary activity. There is a weak positive correlation between age and time spent in an administrative task. Income and mealtime were statistically significant ( r < 0.2 , n = 375 , p < 0.05 ). Conclusion. The high level of self-reported sedentary time record suggests the need for public health policies targeted at increasing physical activity and decreasing sitting time through systemic intervention in and out of work.

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 Faculties to Support General Practitioners Working Rurally at Broader Scope: A National Cross-Sectional Study of Their Value

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (13) ◽  
pp. 4652
Author(s):  
Matthew R. McGrail ◽  
Belinda G. O’Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Rural Communities ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Rural Practice ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Design Work ◽  
Healthcare Needs ◽  
Cross Sectional Design ◽  
Remote Medicine

Strategies are urgently needed to foster rural general practitioners (GPs) with the skills and professional support required to adequately address healthcare needs in smaller, often isolated communities. Australia has uniquely developed two national-scale faculties that target rural practice: the Fellowship in Advanced Rural General Practice (FARGP) and the Fellowship of the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine (FACRRM). This study evaluates the benefit of rural faculties for supporting GPs practicing rurally and at a broader scope. Data came from an annual national survey of Australian doctors from 2008 and 2017, providing a cross-sectional design. Work location (rurality) and scope of practice were compared between FACRRM and FARGP members, as well as standard non-members. FACRRMs mostly worked rurally (75–84%, odds ratio (OR) 8.7, 5.8–13.1), including in smaller rural communities (<15,000 population) (41–54%, OR 3.5, 2.3–5.3). FARGPs also mostly worked in rural communities (56–67%, OR 4.2, 2.2–7.8), but fewer in smaller communities (25–41%, OR 1.1, 0.5–2.5). Both FACRRMs and FARGPs were more likely to use advanced skills, especially procedural skills. GPs with fellowship of a rural faculty were associated with significantly improved geographic distribution and expanded scope, compared with standard GPs. Given their strong outcomes, expanding rural faculties is likely to be a critical strategy to building and sustaining a general practice workforce that meets the needs of rural communities.

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