A study of physical activity behaviour during screen work in home office and office

Status:

completed 01/2026

Aims:

Physical activity behaviour in everyday life and at work has long been the subject of extensive research. A lack of exercise and a high proportion of sedentary behaviour (e.g. sitting at work) are associated with a number of negative health consequences. Conversely, a certain amount of regular physical activity counteracts many risks and also has positive psychological effects.

The digitalisation of work has led to the widespread use of mobile screen work. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the importance of working from home as a form of mobile work in particular and this will probably continue to play an important role for many employees. Studies conducted before the pandemic showed that the movement behaviour of employees varied depending on whether they were working from home or in the office. The general increase and broader implementation may manifest changes in physical activity behaviour that can have both positive and negative consequences. It is unclear which factors of working at the office or working from home are decisive for healthy and safe working.

Employers can only exert limited influence on working conditions (work and break organisation, working hours or working duration) when working from home. This makes it even more important to provide employers, occupational health and safety stakeholders and employees with adequate recommendations. The basis for this must be reliable findings from practical experience gained in both locations (office and home office). For this reason, in a field study, hybrid employees were interviewed about various factors during a real working week with home office work and work in the office. In addition, the movement behaviour of the participants was measured and evaluated using a sensor. Activity before, during and after actual working hours, the organisation of breaks, the commute to work and any sporting activity were all of interest for the study.

Further objectives of this project were to process the scientific findings as a basis for practical recommendations for the design and, if necessary, improvement of physical activity behaviour in both settings and to identify research gaps for possible follow-up projects.

Activities/Methods:

First, suitable hardware and software for measuring movement behaviour was selected and procured. The requirements were high user-friendliness and robustness combined with high scientific quality. Standardised questionnaires and specially adapted protocols were used to record daily routines and other activities. The aim here was to minimise the effort for the test subjects and at the same time to obtain all relevant information in addition to the measured data. The survey aimed to cover typical working days of an entire week, of which at least two should took place at work and two at home.

The evaluation was based on previously published studies and examined parameters of movement behaviour (steps, postures and posture changes, activities, METs, etc.) as well as daily activity (sleep, working hours, breaks, other activities, etc.). On the other hand, the aim was to identify whether there are factors that can be associated with healthier physical activity behaviour due to the possibly divergent daily organisation depending on the place of work.

Results:

The methodology was appropriately and ambitiously chosen to ensure adequate data quality for international comparison. The sample size and data analysis, particularly the consideration of total and pure working hours and the comparison between the two, are novel and provide valuable new insights.

The results can be summarised as follows:
A very high proportion of sedentary behaviour was observed when considering both pure working time (office: 69%; home office: 75%) and total waking time (office: 64%; home office: 66%). Regarding the proportion of standing time, longer periods were observed during waking hours (office: 27%; home office: 26%) and working hours (office: 25%; home office: 20%), possibly reflecting the more comprehensive equipment available in the office.

In the regression model, none of the compositional parameters 'sedentary', 'standing' or 'moving' showed a correlation with sleep quality or musculoskeletal problems during the survey week.

It was also interesting to examine individual time intervals within the context of work. For instance, high levels of sedentary behaviour were observed on Fridays, particularly in home offices, whereas no significant differences were found on the other days in terms of place of work. Notable findings were also observed when examining lunch breaks in isolation. In the office, there were fewer changes in posture (2.7 compared to 5.4 when working from home), but slightly higher activity levels (1.8 compared to 1.7 when working from home). This analysis, as well as considering individual differences, can easily be translated into recommendations. While the sample was significantly more active than the average German population (with only around 7% failing to meet WHO activity recommendations, compared to approximately 48% of 18- to 64-year-olds in the general population), there was still considerable room for improvement at an individual level, e.g. in terms of breaking up long periods of sitting.

The results are used to derive requirements and recommendations, which are developed and distributed in collaboration with the project partners. The results have been and will continue to be published at national scientific conferences and in written form.

Last Update: