The relationship between general practitioner movement behaviours with burnout and fatigue.

BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is associated with feelings of burnout and fatigue, which in turn are associated with reduced performance among healthcare practitioners. This study explored movement behaviours of general practitioners (GPs) and the association between these behaviours with burnout and fatigue. METHODS: GPs in Northern Ireland were asked to wear a thigh-worn accelerometer for seven days and complete validated questionnaires to assess the association between daily number of steps, time spent sitting and standing with feelings of burnout and fatigue. RESULTS: Valid accelerometer data were obtained from 47 (77.0%) participants. Average workday sitting time, standing time and number of steps were 10.6 h (SD 1.5), 3.8 h (SD 1.3), and 7796 steps (SD 3116) respectively. Participants were less sedentary (8.0 h (SD 1.6)) and more active (4.7 h (SD 1.4) standing time and 12,408 steps (SD 4496)) on non-workdays. Fourteen (30.4%) participants reported burnout and sixteen (34.8%) reported severe fatigue. There were no significant associations between sitting, standing and step counts with burnout or fatigue (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: GPs were less active on workdays compared to non-workdays and exhibited high levels of sitting. Feelings of burnout and fatigue were highly prevalent, however movement behaviours were not found to be associated with burnout and fatigue. Given the increased sedentariness among GPs on workdays compared to non-workdays, GPs should consider how they can improve their movement behaviours on workdays to help optimise their wellbeing.

GPs' perspectives regarding their sedentary behaviour and physical activity: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: General practice is a highly sedentary occupation, with many GPs spending more than 10.5 hours sitting each workday. This excessive sedentary behaviour and lack of physical activity (PA) is potentially detrimental to the health of GPs, as well as their ability to counsel patients regarding sedentary behaviour and PA. There is a lack of prior research examining the perspectives of GPs regarding their sedentary behaviour and PA. AIM: To explore GPs' perspectives regarding their sedentary behaviour and PA. DESIGN & SETTING: A qualitative interview study of GPs in Northern Ireland. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 13 GPs who had previously taken part in a study to objectively measure their levels of sedentary behaviour and PA. Interview transcripts were analysed using deductive thematic analysis. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to facilitate identification of barriers and enablers affecting the ability of GPs to increase their PA. RESULTS: Key themes were categorised within six theoretical domains (environmental context and resources, social professional role and identity, goals, social influences, knowledge, and intentions) with sub-themes within each domain. CONCLUSION: Most GPs are unhappy with their current levels of sedentary behaviour and PA, and are concerned with how this is affecting their health. Numerous barriers and facilitators were identified affecting the ability of GPs to increase their PA, including working environment, and personal and professional responsibilities, among others. Addressing these could improve the health of GPs and their ability to counsel patients regarding sedentary behaviour and PA.

Exploration of sedentary behaviour among GPs: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Sedentary behaviour, which may have increased among GPs due to increasing use of telemedicine, is associated with many illnesses and increased all-cause mortality. AIM: To explore levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs and General Practice Specialty Trainees (GPSTs). DESIGN & SETTING: Sequential, cross-sectional design (initial online sedentary behaviour questionnaire and subsequent thigh-worn accelerometer substudy) of GPs and GPSTs in Northern Ireland. METHOD: Self-reported questionnaire data were aggregated and compared with device-measured accelerometry data. RESULTS: Data from 353 participants (17.7% of GPs and GPSTs in Northern Ireland) revealed doctors in general practice self-reported higher workday sedentary time (10.33 hours, SD 2.97) than those in secondary care (7.9 hours, SD 3.43 [mean difference {MD} 2.43 hours; P<0.001]). An active workstation (for example, sit-stand desk), was used by 5.6% of participants in general practice, while 86.0% of those without one would consider using one in future. Active workstation users self-reported lower workday sedentary time (7.88 hours, SD 3.2) than non-users (10.47 hours, SD 2.88 [MD -2.58 hours, P = 0.001]). Accelerometer substudy participants underestimated their workday sedentary time by 0.17 hours (95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.86 to 2.20; P = 0.865), and non-workday sedentary time by 2.67 hours (95% CI = 0.99 to 4.35; P = 0.003). Most GPs (80.7%) reported increased workday sitting time compared to prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, while 87.0% would prefer less workday sitting time. CONCLUSION: GPs have high levels of workday sedentary time, which may be detrimental to their health. It is imperative to develop methods to address sedentary behaviour among GPs on workdays, both for their own health and the health of their patients.

Use of monitoring technology and injury incidence among recreational runners: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring technology is increasingly accessible to recreational runners. Our aim was to examine patterns of technology use in recreational runners, and its potential association with injury. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire study in a sample of adult runners. Recruitment took place at three different 5 km parkrun event across Northern Ireland. Demographics, technology use, running behaviour and running-related injury (RRI) history were examined. Regression analyses were performed to determine relationships between variables. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 192 of 483 eligible finishers (39.8% response rate). Average age was 45.9 years (SD 10.3), with males (47.1 years SD 9.7) slightly older than females (44.8 years SD 10.8). On average, participants ran 3.0 days per week (SD 1.3), with an average weekly distance of 22.6 km (SD 19.7). Males typically ran further (MD 6.2 km/week; 95% CI 0.4 to 12.0) than females. Monitoring technology was used by 87.4% (153/175); with GPS watches the most common device (87.6% (134/153)). Runners using monitoring technology ran further (MD 14.4 km/week; 95% CI 10.3 to 18.5) and more frequently (MD 1.3 days/week; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.9) than those who did not use monitoring technology. There was no significant difference in average age between runners who used monitoring technology and those who did not (MD 4.0 years; 95% CI -0.7 to 8.7). RRI was reported by 40.6% (71/175) of participants in the previous 12 months. In a univariate analysis, none of the selected predictors (age, number of days run per week, distance run per week, or usage of technology to modify training pattern) (p > 0.1) were associated with RRI. CONCLUSIONS: This study found a high prevalence of monitoring technology usage among recreational runners. While the incidence of RRI remains high, it is not associated with the usage of monitoring technology. Further prospective research should examine if monitoring technology can reduce RRI incidence among recreational runners in future.

Sedentary behaviour among general practitioners: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Sedentary behaviour is when someone is awake, in a sitting, lying or reclining posture and is an independent risk factor for multiple causes of morbidity and mortality. A dose-response relationship has been demonstrated, whereby increasing sedentary time corresponds with increasing mortality rate. This study aimed to identify current levels of sedentary behaviour among General Practitioners (GPs), by examining and synthesising how sedentary behaviour has been measured in the primary care literature. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify studies relating to levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Searches were performed using Medline®, Embase®, PscycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, from inception of databases until January 2020, with a subsequent search of grey literature. Articles were assessed for quality and bias, with extraction of relevant data. RESULTS: The search criteria returned 1707 studies. Thirty four full texts were reviewed and 2 studies included in the final review. Both were cross-sectional surveys using self-reported estimation of sedentary time within the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Keohane et al. examined GP trainees and GP trainers in Ireland. 60% reported spending in excess of 7 h sitting each day, 24% between 4 and 7 h, and 16% less than or equal to 4 h. Suija et al. examined female GPs in Estonia. The mean reported daily sitting time was 6 h and 36 min, with 56% sitting for over 6 h per day. Both studies were of satisfactory methodological quality but had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of research examining current levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs. Objective data is needed to determine GPs' current levels of sedentary behaviour, particularly in light of the increase in remote consulting as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.