Twelve-Month Stability of Accelerometer-Measured Occupational and Leisure-Time Physical Activity and Compensation Effects

Jennifer L. Gay, D. Buchner
{"title":"Twelve-Month Stability of Accelerometer-Measured Occupational and Leisure-Time Physical Activity and Compensation Effects","authors":"Jennifer L. Gay, D. Buchner","doi":"10.1123/jmpb.2021-0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Little is known about the stability of occupational physical activity (PA) and documented compensation effects over time. Study objectives were to (a) determine the stability of accelerometer estimates of occupational and nonoccupational PA over 6 months and 1 year in adults who do not change jobs, (b) examine PA stability in office workers relative to employees with nonoffice jobs who may be more susceptible to seasonal perturbations in work tasks, and (c) examine the stability data for compensation effects seen at baseline in this sample. Methods: City/county government workers from a variety of labor sectors wore an accelerometer at initial data collection, and at 6 (n = 98) and 12 months (n = 38) following initial data collection. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated for accelerometer counts and minutes by intensity, domain, and office worker status. Partial correlation coefficients were examined for compensation effects. Results: ICCs ranged from .19 to .91 for occupational and nonwork activity variables. ICCs were similar by office worker status. In both counts and minutes, greater occupational PA correlated with lower total nonwork PA. However, as minutes of occupational moderate to vigorous physical activity increased, nonoccupational moderate to vigorous physical activity did not decrease. Conclusions: There was moderate to high stability in occupational and nonoccupational PA over 6- and 12-month data collection. Occupational PA stability was greater in nonoffice workers, suggesting that those employees’ PA may be less prone to potential cyclical factors at the workplace. Confirmation of the compensation effect further supports the need for workplace intervention studies to examine changes in all intensities of activity during and outside of work time.","PeriodicalId":73572,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/jmpb.2021-0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: Little is known about the stability of occupational physical activity (PA) and documented compensation effects over time. Study objectives were to (a) determine the stability of accelerometer estimates of occupational and nonoccupational PA over 6 months and 1 year in adults who do not change jobs, (b) examine PA stability in office workers relative to employees with nonoffice jobs who may be more susceptible to seasonal perturbations in work tasks, and (c) examine the stability data for compensation effects seen at baseline in this sample. Methods: City/county government workers from a variety of labor sectors wore an accelerometer at initial data collection, and at 6 (n = 98) and 12 months (n = 38) following initial data collection. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated for accelerometer counts and minutes by intensity, domain, and office worker status. Partial correlation coefficients were examined for compensation effects. Results: ICCs ranged from .19 to .91 for occupational and nonwork activity variables. ICCs were similar by office worker status. In both counts and minutes, greater occupational PA correlated with lower total nonwork PA. However, as minutes of occupational moderate to vigorous physical activity increased, nonoccupational moderate to vigorous physical activity did not decrease. Conclusions: There was moderate to high stability in occupational and nonoccupational PA over 6- and 12-month data collection. Occupational PA stability was greater in nonoffice workers, suggesting that those employees’ PA may be less prone to potential cyclical factors at the workplace. Confirmation of the compensation effect further supports the need for workplace intervention studies to examine changes in all intensities of activity during and outside of work time.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
加速度计测量职业和休闲时间体力活动的十二个月稳定性及其补偿效应
引言:关于职业体力活动(PA)的稳定性和文献记载的补偿效应,我们知之甚少。研究目标是(a)确定加速度计估计的6个月和1年内职业和非职业PA在不换工作的成年人中的稳定性,(b)检查办公室工作人员相对于非办公室工作的员工的PA稳定性,后者可能更容易受到工作任务的季节性扰动的影响,以及(c)检查该样本中基线补偿效应的稳定性数据。方法:来自各种劳动部门的市/县政府工作人员在初始数据收集时佩戴加速度计,在初始数据收集后6个月(n = 98)和12个月(n = 38)佩戴加速度计。按强度、领域和办公室工作人员状态计算加速度计计数和分钟的类内相关系数(ICCs)。偏相关系数检验补偿效应。结果:职业和非工作活动变量的ICCs范围为0.19至0.91。办公室工作人员的icc相似。在计数和分钟,较高的职业PA与较低的总非工作PA相关。然而,随着职业中度到剧烈体力活动时间的增加,非职业中度到剧烈体力活动时间并没有减少。结论:在6个月和12个月的数据收集中,职业性和非职业性PA具有中等到高度的稳定性。非办公室员工的职业PA稳定性更高,这表明这些员工的PA可能不太容易受到工作场所潜在周期性因素的影响。补偿效应的确认进一步支持了工作场所干预研究的必要性,以检查工作时间内和工作时间以外所有活动强度的变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Influence of Accelerometer Calibration on the Estimation of Objectively Measured Physical Activity: The Tromsø Study Criterion Validity of Accelerometers in Determining Knee-Flexion Angles During Sitting in a Laboratory Setting Comparability of 24-hr Activity Cycle Outputs From ActiGraph Counts Generated in ActiLife and RStudio Comparison of Sleep and Physical Activity Metrics From Wrist-Worn ActiGraph wGT3X-BT and GT9X Accelerometers During Free-Living in Adults Pre- Versus Postmeal Sedentary Duration—Impact on Postprandial Glucose in Older Adults With Overweight or Obesity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1