Text

Introduction: Physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) in everyday life and at work have long been the subject of extensive research. A lack of exercise and prolonged sitting are associated with negative health outcomes, while regular activity can minimise risks. The COVID-19 pandemic has made working in the home office (HO) more important; even before the pandemic, studies showed differences in PA and SB between working in the HO and working in the office. However, it is still unclear which factors are decisive for a healthy level of PA when working from home.

We therefore present a field study that investigates whether the PA and SB of employees at visual display unit (VDU) workstations differs between working in the HO and in the office. Total waking time as well as pure working time will be analysed. This work focusses on pure working time.

Methodology: Hybrid workers were surveyed during a workweek on various factors, including general life circumstances such as PA and health behaviour. Activity levels were recorded using a thigh-worn ActivPAL 4+ sensor and analysed using the CUELA method. The study focused on activity before, during, and after work hours as well as breaks, commuting, and physical exercise. Parameters such as steps, posture, posture changes, activities, and the metabolic equivalent (MET) were considered, along with daily routines (sleep, working hours, breaks, and other activities). After the study period, participants completed questionnaires on sleep quality (PSQI), subjective PA (IPAQ), and musculoskeletal complaints (CMDQ).

PA and SB were compared in relation to different work locations (HO and office). General activity, postural changes and commuting behaviour were taken into account. In addition, the possible influence or potential interactions of other collected parameters such as caregiving situation, distance to work, personal health behaviour and musculoskeletal complaints were considered.

Results: Data from 52 participants (29w/23m) were analysed for this article. They were on average 42.7 (±10.7) years old and had a BMI of 25.3 (±3.5) kg/m2. The data included 947 hours of work from home and 932 hours in the office.

A tendency towards more SB was found in the HO (74.6%, office: 69.0%). More light PA (>1.5 MET; LPA) was measured in the HO (2.6%, office: 2.3%), while moderate to vigorous PA (≥3 MET; MVPA) was higher in the office (4.7%, HO 2.5%). The number of posture changes was quite similar (office 3.0/h, HO 3.2/h) and the proportion of sedentary bouts >30 minutes was higher in the HO (office 38.9%, HO 46.2%).

Discussion: For the present analysis, pure working hours were analysed. Most of the differences were found for PA. Increased LPA in the HO could be explained by light everyday activities performed during short work breaks. Increased MVPA in the office may be due to climbing stairs, walking to lunch, or walking with colleagues during a meeting. Further analyses will compare the present results to all waking hours and use regression approaches to analyse whether there are correlations between the findings and the covariates collected.

The overall results can then be used to develop practical guidelines and recommendations.