Is questionnaire-based sitting time inaccurate and can it be improved? A cross-sectional investigation using accelerometer-based sitting time.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the differences between a questionnaire-based and accelerometer-based sitting time, and develop a model for improving the accuracy of questionnaire-based sitting time for predicting accelerometer-based sitting time. METHODS: 183 workers in a cross-sectional study reported sitting time per day using a single question during the measurement period, and wore 2 Actigraph GT3X+ accelerometers on the thigh and trunk for 1-4 working days to determine their actual sitting time per day using the validated Acti4 software. Least squares regression models were fitted with questionnaire-based siting time and other self-reported predictors to predict accelerometer-based sitting time. RESULTS: Questionnaire-based and accelerometer-based average sitting times were ≈272 and ≈476 min/day, respectively. A low Pearson correlation (r=0.32), high mean bias (204.1 min) and wide limits of agreement (549.8 to -139.7 min) between questionnaire-based and accelerometer-based sitting time were found. The prediction model based on questionnaire-based sitting explained 10% of the variance in accelerometer-based sitting time. Inclusion of 9 self-reported predictors in the model increased the explained variance to 41%, with 10% optimism using a resampling bootstrap validation. Based on a split validation analysis, the developed prediction model on ≈75% of the workers (n=132) reduced the mean and the SD of the difference between questionnaire-based and accelerometer-based sitting time by 64% and 42%, respectively, in the remaining 25% of the workers. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that questionnaire-based sitting time has low validity and that a prediction model can be one solution to materially improve the precision of questionnaire-based sitting time.

Is objectively measured sitting time associated with low back pain? A cross-sectional investigation in the NOMAD study.

BACKGROUND: Studies on the association between sitting time and low back pain (LBP) have found contrasting results. This may be due to the lack of objectively measured sitting time or because socioeconomic confounders were not considered in the analysis. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association between objectively measured sitting time (daily total, and occupational and leisure-time periods) and LBP among blue-collar workers. METHODS: Two-hundred-and-one blue-collar workers wore two accelerometers (GT3X+ Actigraph) for up to four consecutive working days to obtain objective measures of sitting time, estimated via Acti4 software. Workers reported their LBP intensity the past month on a scale from 0 (no pain) to 9 (worst imaginable pain) and were categorized into either low (≤ 5) or high (> 5) LBP intensity groups. In the multivariate-adjusted binary logistic regression analysis, total sitting time, and occupational and leisure-time sitting were both modeled as continuous (hours/day) and categorical variables (i.e. low, moderate and high sitting time). RESULTS: The multivariate logistic regression analysis showed a significant positive association between total sitting time (per hour) and high LBP intensity (odds ratio; OR = 1.43, 95%CI = 1.15-1.77, P = 0.01). Similar results were obtained for leisure-time sitting (OR = 1.45, 95%CI = 1.10-1.91, P = 0.01), and a similar but non-significant trend was obtained for occupational sitting time (OR = 1.34, 95%CI 0.99-1.82, P = 0.06). In the analysis on categorized sitting time, high sitting time was positively associated with high LBP for total (OR = 3.31, 95%CI = 1.18-9.28, P = 0.03), leisure (OR = 5.31, 95%CI = 1.57-17.90, P = 0.01), and occupational (OR = 3.26, 95%CI = 0.89-11.98, P = 0.08) periods, referencing those with low sitting time. CONCLUSION: Sitting time is positively associated with LBP intensity among blue-collar workers. Future studies using a prospective design with objective measures of sitting time are recommended.

Face validity of the single work ability item: comparison with objectively measured heart rate reserve over several days.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the face validity of the self-reported single item work ability with objectively measured heart rate reserve (%HRR) among blue-collar workers. METHODS: We utilized data from 127 blue-collar workers (Female = 53; Male = 74) aged 18-65 years from the cross-sectional "New method for Objective Measurements of physical Activity in Daily living (NOMAD)" study. The workers reported their single item work ability and completed an aerobic capacity cycling test and objective measurements of heart rate reserve monitored with Actiheart for 3-4 days with a total of 5,810 h, including 2,640 working hours. RESULTS: A significant moderate correlation between work ability and %HRR was observed among males (R = -0.33, P = 0.005), but not among females (R = 0.11, P = 0.431). In a gender-stratified multi-adjusted logistic regression analysis, males with high %HRR were more likely to report a reduced work ability compared to males with low %HRR [OR = 4.75, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.31 to 17.25]. However, this association was not found among females (OR = 0.26, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.16), and a significant interaction between work ability, %HRR and gender was observed (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The observed association between work ability and objectively measured %HRR over several days among male blue-collar workers supports the face validity of the single work ability item. It is a useful and valid measure of the relation between physical work demands and resources among male blue-collar workers. The contrasting association among females needs to be further investigated.