¹Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany
²Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
³Rijndam Rehabilitation, Rotterdam, Netherlands
⁴University of Koblenz, Koblenz, Germany
⁵Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University, Karlsruhe, Germany

Text

Introduction: In recent years, working from home (WFH) has emerged as a common alternative work environment. Considering the interrelationship between human behaviour and the (work) environment as elucidated within socio-ecological models (e.g., Sallis et al. [1]), and the health consequences of physical behaviour (PB) (i.e., physical activity (PA), sedentary behaviour (SB)), investigating the possible influence of WFH on PB is crucial. Accordingly, this study aimed to examine daily associations between PB and the work environment (i.e., WFH, working at the office (WAO)).

Methods: Over at least 5 working days, participants wore two accelerometers (Move 4) during their everyday life to continuously assess PB. The final sample consisted of 55 participants providing 276 days of assessment. While demographic variables were assessed at baseline via a questionnaire, contextual and psychological variables were assessed via several daily smartphone prompts. We employed multilevel modelling to analyse the effect of the work environment on PB.

Results: The work environment negatively predicted moderate-to-vigorous PA time (MVPA) (β = −0.187, p < 0.01), physical activity intensity (MET) (β = −0.108, p < 0.05), number of steps (β = −0.178, p < 0.05, and moderate-to-long PA bouts (β = −0.182, p < 0.01), but positively predicted short PA bouts (≤5 min) (β = 0.151, p < 0.05). Contrarily, the work environment did not predict any examined SB parameter (i.e., SB time, SB breaks, SB bouts). However, high levels of SB were observed for days in both work environments, WFH (9.92 ± 2.55 h/day) and WAO (9.61 ± 2.53 h/day).

Discussion: Results suggest that WFH may be linked to adverse health effects due to its negative influence on several PA outcomes, which may be explained by the lack of (active) commuting to the office. As the data were collected during the pandemic situation, when restrictions (i.e., the so-called “3G-rule”) were enforced nationwide in Germany, future studies under post-pandemic conditions are needed.

Conclusion: Both, the negative association between WFH and several PA outcomes, and the high overall levels of SB irrespective of the work environment, highlight the need to develop interventions to promote PA and reduce SB while WFH.

Literatur

[1] Sallis JF, Cervero RB, Ascher W, Henderson KA, Kraft MK, Kerr J. An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:297-322. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102100