Search

Ever since the COVID‐19 pandemic, working from home (WFH) has emerged as a common alternative work environment, but the possible influence on daily physical behavior (PB) (i.e., physical activity (PA), sedentary behavior (SB)) remains unclear. This study aimed to examine daily associations between PB and the work environment (i.e., WFH, working at the office (WAO)), as well as to explore and identify patterns of PB within each work environment. An observational study using a dual‐accelerometer system to continuously assess PB for at least 5 days was conducted. The sample consisted of 55 participants providing 276 days of assessment. Additional demographic, contextual, and psychological variables were measured via baseline questionnaire and several smartphone prompts per day. To analyze the effects of the work environment on PB, multilevel analyses were conducted. For the identification of patterns within each work environment, latent class trajectory modelling was applied. Associations between the work environment and various PA parameters were found, indicating that WFH has a negative effect on MVPA time, steps, and physical activity intensity (MET), but a positive effect on short PA bouts (≤5 min). No associations between the work environment and any SB parameter (i.e., SB time, SB breaks, SB bouts) were found. Latent class trajectory modelling revealed three MVPA patterns for days WFH, and two patterns for days WAO. Given the growing prevalence of WFH and the positive health effects associated with MVPA, daily‐tailored solutions to enhance MPVA while WFH are urgently needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Physical behavior (ie, physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep) is a crucial lifestyle factor for preventing and managing diseases across the lifespan. However, less is known about potential work‐related psychological and cognitive outcomes such as productivity. The present study examined within‐person associations between physical behavior and self‐perceived work ability. To investigate the degree to which physical behavior parameters influence self‐perceived work ability in everyday life, we conducted an Ambulatory Assessment study in 103 university students over 5 days. Physical behavior was assessed continuously via a multi‐sensor system. Self‐perceived work ability was assessed repeatedly up to six times per day on smartphones. We employed multilevel modeling to analyze the within‐person effects of physical behavior on self‐perceived work ability. Physical activity intensity (MET) (β = 0.15 ± 0.06, t = 2.59, p = 0.012) and sit‐to‐stand transitions (β = 0.07 ± 0.03, t = 2.44, p = 0.015) were positively associated with self‐perceived work ability. Sedentary bouts (≥20 min) (β = −0.21 ± 0.08, t = −2.74, p = 0.006) and deviation from a recommended sleep duration (ie, 8 h) (β = −0.1 ± 0.04, t = −2.38, p = 0.018) were negatively associated with self‐perceived work ability. Exploratory analyses supported the robustness of our findings by comparing various time frames. Total sedentary time and sleep quality were not associated with self‐perceived work ability. Regular sleep durations, breaking up sedentary time through sit‐to‐stand transitions, and higher intensities of physical activity may be important for the regulation of self‐perceived work ability in university students' daily lives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Physical activity is beneficial for human physical health and well‐being. Accordingly, the association between physical activity and mood in everyday life has been a subject of several Ambulatory Assessment studies. This mechanism has been studied in children, adults, and the elderly, but neglected in adolescents. It is critical to examine this mechanism in adolescents because adolescence plays a key role in human development and adolescents' physical activity behavior translates into their behavior in adulthood. We investigated adolescents' mood in relation to distinct physical activities: incidental activity such as climbing stairs; exercise activity, such as skating; and sports, such as playing soccer. We equipped 134 adolescents aged 12‐17 years with accelerometers and GPS‐triggered electronic diaries to use in their everyday life. Adolescents reported on mood repeatedly in real time across 7 days, and these data were analyzed using multilevel‐modeling. After incidental activity, adolescents felt better and more energized. After exercise, adolescents felt better but less calm. After sports, adolescents felt less energized. Analyses of the time course of the effects confirmed our findings. Physical activity influences mood in adolescents' everyday life, but has distinct effects depending on the kind of physical activity. Our results suggest incidental and exercise activities entail higher post‐bout valence compared to sports in competitive settings. These findings may serve as an important empirical basis for the targeted application of distinct physical activities to foster well‐being in adolescence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Empirical evidence shows that physical behavior positively impacts human health. Recently, researchers have started to differentiate between physical activity and sedentary behavior showing independent effects on somatic health. However, whether this differentiation is also relevant for mood dimensions is largely unknown. For investigating the dynamic relationships between sedentary behavior and mood dimensions in daily life, ambulatory assessment (AA) has become the state‐of‐the‐art methodology. To investigate whether sedentary behaviors influence mood dimensions, we conducted an AA study in the everyday life of 92 university employees over 5 days. We continuously measured sedentary behavior via accelerometers and assessed mood repeatedly 10 times each day on smartphone diaries. To optimize our sampling strategy, we used a sophisticated sedentary‐triggered algorithm. We employed multilevel modeling to analyze the within‐subject effects of sedentary behavior on mood. Sedentary time (15‐minute intervals prior to each e‐diary assessment) and sedentary bouts (30‐minute intervals of uninterrupted sedentary behavior) negatively influenced valence and energetic arousal (all Ps < 0.015). In particular, the more participants were sedentary in their everyday life, the less they felt well and energized. Exploratory analyses of the temporal course of these effects supported our findings. Sedentary behavior can be seen as a general risk factor because it impacts both somatic and mental health. Most importantly, physical activity and sedentary behavior showed independent effects on mood dimensions. Accordingly, future studies should consider the two sides of the physical behavior coin: How should physical activity be promoted? and How can sedentary behavior be reduced? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]