Descriptive epidemiology of domain-specific sitting in working adults: the Stormont Study

Background Given links between sedentary behaviour and unfavourable health outcomes, there is a need to understand the influence of socio-demographic factors on sedentary behaviour to inform effective interventions. This study examined domain-specific sitting times reported across socio-demographic groups of office workers. Methods The analyses are cross-sectional and based on a survey conducted within the Stormont Study, which is tracking employees in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Participants self-reported their daily sitting times across multiple domains (work, TV, travel, PC use and leisure) on workdays and non-workdays, along with their physical activity and socio-demographic variables (sex, age, marital status, BMI, educational attainment and work pattern). Total and domain-specific sitting on workdays and non-workdays were compared across socio-demographic groups using multivariate analyses of covariance. Results Completed responses were obtained from 4436 participants. For the whole sample, total daily sitting times were higher on workdays in comparison to non-workdays (625 ± 168 versus 469 ± 210 min/day, P < 0.001). On workdays and non-workdays, higher sitting times were reported by individuals aged 18–29 years, obese individuals, full-time workers and single/divorced/widowed individuals (P < 0.001). Conclusions Interventions are needed to combat the high levels of sedentary behaviour observed in office workers, particularly among the highlighted demographic groups. Interventions should target workplace and leisure-time sitting

Psychosocial risk assessment in organizations: concurrent validity of the brief version of the Management Standards Indicator Tool

The Management Standards Indicator Tool (MSIT) is a 35-item self-report measure of the psychosocial work environment designed to assist organizations with psychosocial risk assessment. It is also used in work environment research. Edwards and Webster presented a 25-item version of the MSIT based on the deletion of items having a factor loading of < .65. Stress theory and research suggest that psychosocial hazard exposures may result in harm to the health of workers. Thus, using data collected from three UK organizations (N = 20,406) we compared the concurrent validity of the brief and full versions of the MSIT by exploring the strength of association between each version of the instrument and a measure of psychological wellbeing (GHQ-12 and Maslach Burnout Inventory). Analyses revealed that the brief instrument offered similar but not always equal validity to that of the full version. The results indicate that use of the brief instrument, which would be less disruptive for employees, would not elevate the risk of false negative or false positive findings in risk assessment

Can a single-item measure of job stressfulness identify common mental disorder?

There is a need for brief and non-intrusive measures to identify common mental disorder (CMD) in worker populations. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether workers reporting CMD symptoms indicative of minor psychiatric morbidity could be reliably identified by a single-item job stressfulness measure (SIJSM). A secondary aim was to determine the number of response categories required to maximize the sensitivity and specificity of the SIJSM. Data from seven occupational groups were analysed (N = 20,658). We measured CMD using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and job stressfulness with a single item involving five response options. We applied tests of discriminatory power to assess whether a report of high job stressfulness (SIJSM score ?4, very stressful or extremely stressful) correctly classified CMD cases (GHQ-12 score ?4) and non-cases. Both sensitivity and specificity of the SIJSM were acceptable (?70%) in samples where at least 50% of respondents reported high job stressfulness (prison officers, public protection unit police officers dealing with domestic violence and child abuse). Discriminatory power was optimal and almost identical at the ?4 cut-off on a 5-point scale and ?6 on a 9-point scale. In occupations with elevated prevalence of high job stressfulness the SIJSM appears to demonstrate acceptable sensitivity and specificity, providing for efficient and non-intrusive identification of likely minor psychiatric morbidity. The measure could be used with such groups to identify workers that would benefit from in-depth psychosocial risk assessment and targeted intervention

Socioeconomic status, demographic and personal factors, and the eating behaviours of civil service employees: a cross-sectional study [Abstract]

Socioeconomic status, demographic and personal factors, and the eating behaviours of civil service employees: a cross-sectional study [Abstract

Work engagement and its association with occupational sitting time: results from the Stormont Study

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that poor health outcomes and poor work-related health outcomes such as sickness presenteeism are associated with excessive sitting at work. Studies have yet to investigate the relationship between work engagement and occupational sitting. Work engagement is considered to be an important predictor of work-related well-being. We investigated the relationship between and self-reported work engagement and high occupational sitting time in Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) office-based workers. METHOD: A cohort of 4436 NICS office-workers (1945 men and 2491 women) completed a questionnaire measuring work engagement and occupational sitting time. Logistic regression analyses were used to test the associations between work engagement and occupational sitting times. RESULTS: Compared to women, men reported lower mean occupational sitting time (385.7 minutes/day; s.d. = 1.9; versus 362.4 minutes/day; s.d. =2.5; p < .0001). After adjusting for confounding variables, men with high work engagement of vigor (OR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.34-0.98) and dedication (OR 0.68 95% CI 0.47-0.98) were less likely to have prolonged sitting time. Women with high work engagement of vigor (OR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.84) were also less likely to have prolonged occupational sitting times. In contrast, women with high absorption (OR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.01-1.65) were more likely to have prolonged sitting times. CONCLUSIONS: Being actively engaged in one’s work is associated with lower occupational sitting times for men (vigor and dedication) and to a limited extent for women (vigor only). This suggests that interventions such as introducing sit-stand workstations to reduce sitting times, may be beneficial for work engagement

Cross-sectional associations between domain-specific sitting time and other lifestyle health behaviours: the Stormont study

BackgroundThere is a dearth of literature on how different domains of sitting time relate to other health behaviours. Therefore, this study aimed to explore these associations in a sample of office workers.Methods7170 Northern Irish Civil Servants completed an online survey which included information on workday and non-workday sitting time in five domains (travel, work, TV, computer-use, leisure-time), physical activity, fruit and vegetable intake, alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking. An unhealthy behaviour score was calculated by summing the number of health behaviours which did not meet the current guidelines. Multinomial regressions examined associations between unhealthy behaviour score and each domain of sitting time.Results≥7 hours sitting at work and ≥2 hours TV viewing on a workday both more than doubled the odds of partaking in ≥3 unhealthy behaviours [Odds ratio, OR = 2.03, 95% CI, (1.59–2.61); OR = 2.19 (1.71–2.80)] and ≥3 hours of TV viewing on a non-workday nearly tripled the odds [OR = 2.96 (2.32–3.77)].ConclusionsHigh sitting time at work and TV viewing on a workday and non-workday are associated with increased odds of partaking in multiple unhealthy behaviours. Interventions need to focus on these domains and public health policy should consider sitting time as an important health behaviour

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P &lt; 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely