Sedentary behavior: Understanding and influencing adults' prolonged sitting time

Too much sitting is now understood to be a health risk that is additional to, and distinct from, too little exercise. There is a rapidly-accumulating evidence on relationships of prolonged sedentary time and patterns of sedentary time with cardio-metabolic risk biomarkers and health outcomes. There is, however, the need to gather dose–response evidence and develop a broader understanding of the set of mechanisms linking sedentary behavior to health outcomes. In addition to the further understanding of the associated health risks, there is a new health-behavior, and epidemiological and experimental research agenda to be pursued, which include measurement studies; understanding the relevant determinants—particularly environmental determinants of sedentary behavior; and, developing effective interventions. A broad-based body of evidence is needed to inform the research-translation agenda—identifying and developing the future public health initiatives, environmental and policy changes and clinical guidelines that may be required.     

Trends in prolonged sitting time among European adults: 27 country analysis

ObjectiveTo examine trends in adult sitting time across 27 European countries.MethodData were from the Eurobarometer surveys collected in 2002, 2005, and 2013. Sitting time data were used to categorise respondents into ‘low’ (0 to 4h30min), ‘middle’ (4h31min to 7h30min), and ‘high’ levels of sitting (>7h30min). We modelled the likelihood of being in the high sitting group within a given country and overall across the three time points, controlling for age, gender, education, employment status, and physical activity.ResultsIn total 17 countries had sitting data at all three time points; among these countries the prevalence of ‘high sitting’ decreased steadily from 23.1% (95% CI = 22.2–24.1) in 2002 to 21.8% (95% CI = 20.8–22.8) in 2005, and 17.8% (95% CI = 16.9–18.7) in 2013. A further 10 countries had data only over the latter two time points; among these countries the prevalence of high sitting decreased from 27.7% (95% CI = 26.0–29.4) in 2005 to 19.0% (95% CI = 17.6–20.5) in 2013.ConclusionTime spent in sedentary behaviour may not be increasing in the European region, and prolonged sitting may, in fact, be decreasing. This finding has important implications for the sedentary behaviour debate and the policy response.     

大学生久坐行为/屏幕时间与心理健康的Meta分析

目的系统梳理久坐行为/屏幕时间与大学生心理健康影响的相关文献, 旨在探讨大学生久坐行为/屏幕时间与心理健康之间的关系, 为促进大学生心理健康发展提供理论依据。方法在PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、中国知网、维普数据库和万方数据知识服务平台进行检索, 截止日期为2022年7月14日, 研究久坐行为/屏幕时间与大学生心理健康研究相关文献。由一名研究者按照拟订方案对纳入的文献进行数据提取并进行质量评分, 再由另一名研究者进行复核;对符合纳入标准的文献进行系统综述, 并根据文献可提取数据的情况, 采用Stata 14.2软件进行Meta分析。结果共有36篇文献符合纳入标准, 包括35篇观察性研究和1篇干预性研究。对久坐行为(4篇)、屏幕时间(9篇)与大学生抑郁、屏幕时间与大学生焦虑(4篇)进行Meta分析, 对其他研究进行系统综述。久坐行为与大学生抑郁的Meta分析结果显示, 较长的久坐时长增加了大学生抑郁风险(OR=1.07, 95%CI:1.05～1.10)。亚组分析显示, 未校正混杂因素模型中, 较长的久坐时长与抑郁不存在相关性(OR=1.74, 95%CI...     

静态行为流行病学研究进展

静态行为(又称久坐),因其与心脑血管疾病等存在独立性关联而成为体育、公共卫生等学科的新兴研究领域。在国际上,静态行为的测量、与疾病的关系以及决定性因素、干预策略等正处于深入探索之中,形成了大量高质量的研究文献。而在国内,有关静态行为的研究正处于起步阶段,研究的深度、系统性还与英美等主要发达国家存在一定差距。为此,本文系统梳理现有国内外静态行为研究领域重要文献,阐述该领域研究进展以及亟待解决的科学问题,为今后有针对性地深入研究静态行为提供参考。     

2010—2012年中国成年居民闲暇静态活动现状及社会人口学影响因素

目的了解中国成年居民闲暇静态活动的现状及其影响因素。方法使用"2010—2012年中国居民营养与健康状况监测"中"身体活动调查问卷"收集的数据,采用多阶段分层整群随机抽样方法对中国142 369名18岁及以上成年居民(男性62 563人,女性79 806人)的闲暇静态活动时间进行调查,使用SAS 9.1描述分析闲暇静坐活动的时间和静坐活动时间2小时及以上的人群的比例,建立多元Logistic模型对静坐时间2小时及以上人群的比例与社会人口学因素的关系进行分析。结果18岁及以上居民闲暇时静态活动的时间平均为2.66小时/天,平均每天闲暇静态活动时间2小时及以上的比例82.1%。每天静态活动时间和静态活动2小时及以上的比例,城市居民(83.0%)高于农村(81.3%),男性(83.8%)高于女性(80.4%),随年龄降低,教育程度升高,居民静态活动时间2小时及以上的比例上升,家庭人均年收入一万元及以上(83.6%)的高于低于一万元(80.7%)的居民,未婚居民(89.1%)高于有配偶(81.3%)和离异或丧偶者(77.2%)。多元Logistic回归分析发现,地区、性别、年龄、教育水平、职业、婚姻状况、家庭人口数、家庭人均年收入与闲暇静态活动2小时及以上人群的比例之间都有显著关系。结论中国18岁及以上居民闲暇静态活动水平较高,不同年龄、性别、地区、家庭经济状况、教育水平以及婚姻状况的成年居民的静态活动水平不同。     

Cross-sectional associations between sitting at work and psychological distress: Reducing sitting time may benefit mental health

ProblemEvidence is emerging of adverse associations between prolonged sitting at work and physical health, yet little is known about occupational sitting and mental health. This study examined associations between occupational sitting and psychological distress in employed adults, independent of leisure-time physical activity.MethodsA survey of 3367 state government employees (mean age 46.2 years, 71.9% women) was conducted in Tasmania, Australia, during 2010 as part of an evaluation of workplace health and wellbeing programs. The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) was used to measure psychological distress, and participants reported time spent sitting at work on a typical day. Physical activity was assessed using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Ratios of prevalence (PR) for categories of psychological distress were estimated by log multinomial regression separately for men and women, and with adjustment for age, marital status, effort-reward imbalance and leisure-time physical activity.ResultsAverage reported occupational sitting time was 4.8 (Standard Deviation SD = 2.5) hours for men and 4.2 (SD = 2.7) hours for women. Compared to those sitting at work less than 3 h/day, men sitting more than 6 h/day had increased prevalence of moderate psychological distress (adjusted PR = 1.90, 95%CI 1.22, 2.95), and women sitting more than 6 h/day had an increased prevalence of moderate (adjusted PR = 1.25, 95%CI 1.05, 1.49) and high (adjusted PR = 1.76, 95%CI 1.25, 2.47) distress.ConclusionThe current study found an association between occupational sitting and intermediate levels of psychological distress, independent of leisure-time physical activity. Reducing occupational sitting time may have mental health benefits.     

Associations of overall sitting time and sitting time in different contexts with depression,anxiety, and stress symptoms

Spending a lot of time sitting has been linked to more depressive symptoms and spending a lot of time engaged in screen-based sitting has been linked to greater likelihood of having mental disorders and poorer psychological distress. The purpose of this study was to examine whether overall sitting time and time spent sitting in different contexts was associated with depression, anxiety, or stress symptoms. Sitting time (time spent sitting on typical work- and non-work days while engaged in leisure activities, working, using a computer, watching television, and in transport) and symptom severity of depression, anxiety, and stress were self-reported in a cross-sectional online survey in 2012 by Australian adults (N = 1,104, 55% female, M age = 58 years). Associations were examined using negative binomial regression analyses accounting for the covariates of physical activity, sex, age, income, education, and presence of chronic conditions. Overall sitting time was significantly associated with more severe depression (b = 0.01, 95% CI = 0.00 to 0.02) and anxiety (b = 0.03, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.04) but not stress (b = 0.01, 95% CI = −0.00 to 0.02) symptoms. Time spent sitting while at a computer was associated with more severe depression (b = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.07) and anxiety (b = 0.03, 95% CI = 0.00 to 0.06) symptoms, and time spent sitting while in transport was associated with more severe anxiety (b = 0.09, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.13) and stress (b = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.08) symptoms. Limiting overall sitting time and time spent sitting while at a computer or in transport could be potential strategies to improve mental health.     

Understanding occupational sitting: Prevalence,correlates and moderating effects in Australian employees

ObjectiveTo (1) compare occupational sitting between different socio-demographic, health-related, work-related and psychosocial categories, (2) identity socio-demographic, health-related, work-related and psychosocial correlates of occupational sitting, and (3) examine the moderating effect of work-related factors in the relation between correlates and occupational sitting.MethodsRandomly-selected Australian adults completed a web-based survey assessing socio-demographic (country of birth, gender, age, education, income), health-related (general health, weight, physical activity), work-related (employment status, occupational task, occupational classification) and sedentary-specific psychosocial (social norm, social support, self-efficacy, control, advantages, disadvantage, intention) factors, and occupational sitting-time. t-tests, ANOVAs and multiple linear regression analyses were conducted (in 2013) on a sample of employees (n = 993).ResultsRespondents sat on average for 3.75 (SD = 2.45) h/day during work. Investigated correlates explained 41% of the variance in occupational sitting. More occupational sitting was associated with being male, being younger, higher education and income, part-time and full-time employment, sedentary job tasks, white-collar/professional occupations, higher BMI, and perceiving more advantages of sitting less at work. Employment status and occupational classification moderated the association between control to sit less and occupational sitting. A lack of control to sit less was associated with higher occupational sitting in part-time and full-time workers, but not in casual workers; and in white-collar and professional workers, but not in blue-collar workers.ConclusionsMost important contributors to occupational sitting were work-related and socio-demographic correlates. More research is needed to confirm present results.     

Sedentary time among primary school children in south-west Germany: amounts and correlates

Background

Sedentary behaviour in children is related to different health consequences such as overweight and cardio-metabolic diseases that can track into adulthood. Previous studies have shown that children spend hours being sedentary, but no data of sedentary time (ST) among German children has been available, yet. Therefore, this study investigated objectively measured amounts and correlates of ST in a sample of German primary school children.

Methods

Children’s physical activity (PA) was objectively assessed for 6 days using a multi-sensor device (Actiheart®; CamNtech, Cambridge, UK). Activity levels were categorized on the basis of energy expenditure (MET) into sedentary, light PA (LPA), and moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA). ST excluding sleeping hours was assessed for 231 children (7.1 ± 0.6 years, male: 45.9%) and analysed for independent groups. Examined factors (parental education, household income, and migration background) were assessed by parental questionnaire. Children’s weight, height and gender were collected in schools. Weight status was calculated on the basis of BMI percentiles.

Results

On average, children spent 3.5 ± 1.5 h daily being sedentary, excluding sleeping hours. Significantly higher ST was found in girls (t = ?4.6; p < 0.01), in children with migration background (t = ?6.9; p < 0.01), at the weekend (t = ?2.8; p < 0.01), and among inactive children (t = 6.8; p < 0.01). Additionally, significant correlations with ST in this sample were identified for MVPA (B = ?0.99; [?1.09;-0.88], p < 0.01), LPA (B = ?0.89; [?0.97;-0.82], p < 0.01), migration background (B = ?17.64; [5.24;30.04], p < 0.01), gender (B = ?13.48; [?25.94;-1.01], p < 0.05) and household income (B = ?4.80; [?9.07; ?0.53], p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Girls, children with migration background, and inactive children were identified as potential risk groups. A higher income was associated with less ST. In general, ST was higher at the weekend. Furthermore, as PA was found to be negatively correlated to ST, these activities may replace each other. Therefore, these findings should be considered in future health interventions.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), DRKS-ID: DRKS00000494 DATE: 25/08/2010.

     

静态行为与心脑血管病死亡关系巢式病例对照研究

目的 了解静态行为与心脑血管病死亡的关系。方法 于2010年10月-2014年12月应用巢式病例对照研究方法对江苏省8 275名≥18周岁未患心脑血管病的常住居民作为研究队列进行随访,以队列中96例新发心脑血管病死亡患者作为病例组,并按照成组设计、病例与对照1：5的原则从随访队列中未发生心脑血管病事件人群中抽取480人作为对照组,应用多因素logistic回归分析方法,在调整可能的混杂因素后分析静态行为与心脑血管病死亡间的关系。结果 在调整年龄、文化程度、家庭平均年收入、吸烟、饮酒和血压等因素后,每日静态行为时间≥6 h者心脑血管病死亡风险为每日静态行为时间<2 h者的5.94倍（95%CI=2.01~17.60）;静态行为与吸烟行为在心脑血管病死亡上存在交互作用（OR_交互=1.37,95%CI=1.01~3.56）,现在吸烟同时每日静态行为时间≥6 h者心脑血管病死亡风险为从不吸烟且每日静态行为时间<2 h者的2.46倍（95%CI=1.03~5.88）,未发现静态行为与饮酒行为在心脑血管病死亡上存在交互作用（OR_交互=0.91,95%CI=0.78~1.06）。结论 每日静态行为时间过长可以单独或通过与吸烟行为相互作用而增加心脑血管病的死亡风险。     

学龄儿童青少年闲暇视屏时间与超重肥胖的相关性

了解儿童青少年视屏时间现状及其与超重肥胖的关系,为肥胖预防和干预提供科学依据.方法 采取随机整群抽样方法,从北京市、湖南省和宁夏回族自治区整群抽取20所县/市城区中、小学校,对入选的4 164名学生计算体质量指数(BMI),并进行自填式问卷调查.结果 学生的平均视屏时间为(108.1±84.6) min/d,工作日和休息日视屏时间分别为(65.9±87.0) min/d、(215.0±130.1) min/d;休息日视屏时间男生[(222.3±132.0) min/d]高于女生[(206.8±127.5) min/d]、中学生[(224.9±132.4)min/d]高于小学生[(194.7±122.8)min/d]、农村学生[(224.8± 134.7)min/d]高于城市学生[(211.8±128.4) min/d](t值分别为3.810,-6.830,-2.652,P值均<0.05);工作日视屏时间组间差异均无统计学意义(P值均>0.05).控制年龄、性别、家庭经济状况、膳食情况、体力活动等协变量后,Logistic回归分析发现,休息日每天视屏时间超过2h是儿童青少年超重、肥胖的独立危险因素(OR=1.38,95%CI=1.11~ 1.72;OR=1.25,95%CI=1.00~1.56).结论 视屏时间过长可能增加儿童青少年超重肥胖的风险.     

北京市儿童青少年静坐行为现状

了解北京市儿童青少年静坐行为现状及对健康状况的影响,为健康行为干预制定提供科学依据.方法 使用中文修订版“学龄儿童健康行为”问卷对北京市6个区县5 876名11,13,15岁儿童青少年的静坐行为和健康状况进行调查.结果 儿童青少年上学日和周末静坐行为总时间分别为3.75和8.03 h,随年龄增长呈上升趋势.做作业是上学日静坐行为的主要来源,占64.9%;看电视、用计算机和玩游戏所占比例仅为21.0%,8.5%和5.3%.周末做作业时间所占比例下降至39.0%,视屏时间比例增加.11,13,15岁儿童青少年上学日视屏时间>2h的比例分别为37.9%,29.3%和19.8%,而周末视屏时间>2 h的比例分别为79.9%,85.1%,87.0%.结论 北京市儿童青少年静坐行为状况不容乐观,尤其做作业时间过长.教育与卫生部门应该针对青少年静坐行为特点开展健康行为教育工作.