Physical activity can be performed across several domains, including leisure, occupation, household, and transportation, but physical activity research, measurement, and surveillance have historically been focused on leisure-time physical activity. Emerging evidence suggests differential health effects across these domains. In particular, occupational physical activity may be associated with adverse health outcomes. We argue that to adequately consider and evaluate such impacts, physical activity researchers and public health practitioners engaging in measurement, surveillance, and guideline creation should measure and consider all relevant physical activity domains where possible. We describe why physical activity science is often limited to the leisure-time domain and provide a rationale for expanding research and public health efforts to include all physical activity domains.
Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for
- Author: Tyler D. Quinn x
- Refine by Access: All Content x
Context Matters: The Importance of Physical Activity Domains for Public Health
Tyler D. Quinn and Bethany Barone Gibbs
Association Between Leisure-Time Physical Activity and Occupation Activity Level, National Health Interview Survey—United States, 2020
Jasmine Y. Nakayama, Miriam E. Van Dyke, Tyler D. Quinn, and Geoffrey P. Whitfield
Background: Physical activity for any purpose counts toward meeting Physical Activity Guidelines (PAG). However, national surveillance systems traditionally focus on leisure-time physical activity. There is an incomplete understanding of the association between meeting PAG in leisure time and occupation activity level among US workers. Methods: We used cross-sectional 2020 National Health Interview Survey data to examine US adults aged 18–64 years who worked the week before the survey (n = 14,814). We estimated the proportion meeting aerobic and muscle-strengthening PAG in leisure time by occupation activity level (low, intermediate, and high). Using logistic regression, we examined the association between meeting PAG in leisure time and occupation activity level, adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and stratified by hours worked. We compared the sociodemographic characteristics of adults working ≥40 hours (the previous week) in high-activity occupations to those in low- or intermediate-activity occupations. Results: Adults working in high-activity occupations were less likely to meet PAG in leisure time (26.1% [24.3–28.1]) versus those in low-activity (30.6% [29.1–32.2], P < .01) or intermediate-activity (32.4% [30.8–34.2]) occupations. In stratified, adjusted models, adults working ≥40 hours in low- and intermediate-activity occupations were 13% and 20%, respectively, more likely to meet PAG in leisure time versus those in high-activity occupations. Among those working ≥40 hours, adults in high-activity occupations were more likely to be Hispanic or Latino, male, younger, and have a high school education or lower compared with those in less active occupations. Conclusion: Traditional surveillance may underestimate meeting PAG among people working in high-activity occupations, potentially disproportionately affecting certain groups.
Distinguishing Passive and Active Standing Behaviors From Accelerometry
Robert J. Kowalsky, Herman van Werkhoven, Marco Meucci, Tyler D. Quinn, Lee Stoner, Christopher M. Hearon, and Bethany Barone Gibbs
Purpose: To investigate whether active standing can be identified separately from passive standing via accelerometry data and to develop and test the accuracy of a machine-learning model to classify active and passive standing. Methods: Ten participants wore a thigh-mounted activPAL monitor and stood for three 5-min periods in the following order: (a) PASSIVE: standing with no movement; (b) ACTIVE: five structured weight-shifting micromovements in the medial–lateral, superior–inferior, and anterior–poster planes while standing; and (c) FREE: participant’s choice of active standing. Averages of absolute resultant acceleration values in 15-s epochs were compared via analysis of variance (Bonferroni adjustment for pairwise comparisons) to confirm the dichotomization ability of the standing behaviors. Absolute resultant acceleration values and SDs in 2- and 5-s epochs were used to develop a machine-learning model using leave-one-subject-out cross validation. The final accuracy of the model was assessed using the area under the curve from a receiver operating characteristic curve. Results: Comparison of resultant accelerations across the three conditions (PASSIVE, ACTIVE, and FREE) resulted in a significant omnibus difference, F(2, 19) = [116], p < .001, η2 = .86, and in all pairwise post hoc comparisons (all p < .001). The machine-learning model using 5-s epochs resulted in 94% accuracy for the classification of PASSIVE versus ACTIVE standing. Model application to the FREE data resulted in an absolute average difference of 4.8% versus direct observation and an area under the curve value of 0.71. Conclusions: Active standing in three planes of movement can be identified from thigh-worn accelerometry via a machine-learning model, yet model refinement is warranted.