Determinants and Associations of 24-hour Movement Behaviors in Desk Workers who Work from Home
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Work from Home (WFH) has become a viable and common work modality. Scarce evidence exists assessing 24-hour movement behaviors in those who WFH. The goals of this project were to compare behaviors of WFH desk workers to office-based desk workers and to identify determinants and gain perspectives of those who WFH in relation to their 24-hour movement patterns. Methods: The first project was a secondary data analysis of baseline data from a randomized clinical trial among desk workers (n=275). Device-measured and self-reported 24-hour movement behaviors were compared between in-office vs. WFH worksite locations using linear regression. Odds of meeting 24-hour guidelines were also compared by worksite location, using the Canadian 24-hour movement guidelines as a framework. The second project used a mixed methods study design in WFH desk workers (n=27) to assess device-measured and self-reported 24-hour movement behavior data and gather qualitative data using focus groups. Focus group discussions intended to identify determinants and desired supports for healthy 24-hour movement behaviors in those who WFH. Following descriptive analysis of 24-hour behavior data, transcript analysis of five focus groups used Atlas.ti coding software, with two study coders, and identified salient themes. Results: For aim 1, WFH workers accumulated significantly less light physical activity (LPA) [-0.51±0.20 hours/day , p=0.01] and higher prolonged sedentary behavior (SB) [0.54±0.25 hours/day, p=0.03] compared to in-office workers. WFH workers were less likely to meet MVPA guidelines (OR: 0.52 [95% CI: 0.28, 0.98)]) and more likely to meet the sleep quality (OR: 2.23 [95% CI: 1.10, 4.51]), waketime consistency (OR: 2.63 [95% CI: 1.27, 5.48)]), and overall sleep guidelines (OR: 2.42 [95% CI: 1.25, 4.67]). For aim 2, focus groups in WFH individuals revealed three key themes that impacted their 24-hour movement behaviors: 1) workspace characteristics such as physical environment characteristics, 2) support for healthy living such as employer support, and 3) non-work-related influences including family obligations and self-motivation. Conclusions: WFH desk workers had different 24-hour behavior profiles to those who worked in office settings. Unique determinants of these behaviors for WFH contexts suggest future studies should incorporate WFH-specific determinants when designing interventions for this population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".