This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
This study aimed to evaluate the effects of sedentary behavior types and physical activity on well-being.
Methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted with 428 university students. The study data were collected through online forms between March and April 2021: the Sociodemographic Characteristics and Activities Form, Sedentary Behaviour Questionnaire, Health Assessment Form, and World Health Organization-5 Well-Being Index. Data were evaluated using descriptive statistics and decision tree analysis.
Results
The average time spent sedentary in a day was 11.231±4.358 hours. The mean sedentary time spent mentally passive was 4.660±2.240 hours, and the time spent mentally active was 6.571±3.335 hours. A low positive correlation was observed between well-being score and weekly moderate and total moderate-to-high physical activity time, and a low negative correlation was observed with mentally passive sedentary time. According to decision tree analysis, students who rated their health status as worse than in the previous year and those who did not engage in any physical activity were more likely to be classified as individuals at risk in terms of well-being. In contrast, among those who reported no change in their health status, students who engaged in physical activity and had mentally passive sedentary time below 5.25 hours were less likely to be assigned to the risk group.
Conclusion
To protect physical and mental health, measures should be taken to reduce sedentary time, especially mentally passive sedentary time, and to increase physical activity time.
Evidence on the effects of total sedentary time on health is growing. Sedentary behavior (SB) has wide-ranging negative effects on health, such as an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and all-cause mortality; metabolic risks such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and dyslipidemia; musculoskeletal disorders such as arthralgia and osteoporosis; and depression and cognitive impairment [1-3]. The increase in SBs, which were common in all age groups in the pre-pandemic period, and decrease in physical activity (PA) time contribute to the development of important health problems [4-6].
In recent years, the evaluations of SBs specific to context and patterns have increased. While context-specific SBs are classified as occupational-, leisure time-, and transportation-related behaviors to evaluate the effects of SB on mental health, SBs in these contexts are categorized as mentally active (reading a book, using a computer for work, etc.) and passive (watching TV and videos, listening to music, etc.) [7-9].
Necessities such as attending classes and studying for long periods in university life increase the time spent sedentary, making university youth a risk group. A decrease in the duration of PA has been reported among university students during the pandemic [4-6]. The decrease in the duration of PA and prolongation of the duration of SB threaten the current and future health of university students [10]. Although there are studies on SBs among university students, there are insufficient data on the effects of mentally active and passive SBs.
It is predicted that the restriction process due to the pandemic has negative effects on university students’ SBs, PA, and well-being. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of SB types and PA on well-being. The determination of the frequency and types of SB that threaten the health of young people and the frequency of PA will provide a guide for determining measures to be taken.
Methods
Study population and sample
This cross-sectional study was conducted between March 18 and April 30, 2021. The study population consisted of university students from throughout Türkiye. Using the Epi Info 7 Stat Calc Program, the minimum number of samples was calculated as 384 individuals out of 7,940,133 students studying at universities across Turkey [11], with an incidence of SB of 50%, a 5% sampling error, and a confidence level of 95%; 428 individuals were contacted, with the prediction that a 10% loss could occur in the data. A nonprobability sampling method was used to determine the samples. The online questionnaire form was shared with university student groups on social media platforms, and each participant who viewed the form was asked to share it with university students.
Data collection forms
The study data were collected through four online forms: the Sociodemographic Characteristics and Activities Form, Sedentary Behaviour Questionnaire (SBQ), Health Assessment Form, and the World Health Organization-5 Well-Being Index.
The Sociodemographic Characteristics and Activities Form: The form prepared by the researchers by scanning the literature included questions evaluating age, gender, employment status, income status, height and weight, department studied, and education method (distance, face-to-face, hybrid) [12-15]. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated by taking the square root of weight/height based on self-report. BMI categories were classified as ≤18.49 kg/m2 “weak,” 18.50–24.99 kg/m2 “normal,” and 25.00 kg/m2 and over “slightly overweight/obese” [16].
PA level was evaluated using four questions. The intensity of PA was defined using a scale of 0–10 (0, resting state; 10, quite difficult activities) depending on the difficulty level, with 5–6 medium intensity and 7 and above vigorous intensity. According to the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) PA guide, medium-intensity PA is classified using the categories “less than 150 minutes, between 150–300 minutes, 301 minutes and more per week,” while vigorous-intensity PA is classified using the categories “less than 75 minutes, between 75–150 minutes, 151 minutes and over” [17].
According to the status of doing 150–300 minutes of moderate-intensity or 75–150 minutes of vigorous-intensity PA per week, those who do no PA were classified as “no physical activity,” those who met at least one PA recommendation at medium or vigorous intensity as “adequate PA,” and others as “insufficient PA.”
The change in daily PA, social activity, and time spent in front of the computer by students compared to pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was evaluated as “increased,” “decreased,” “stayed the same,” and “I never do.”
The characteristics of student health status were evaluated through whether they had COVID-19, whether they had other health problems during this period, how they evaluated their current health compared to the pre-pandemic period, and how they perceived their health in the last month.
World Health Organization-5 Well-Being Index
The Turkish validity and reliability study of the index was conducted by Eser et al. [18], and they confirmed the single-factor structure and reported the Cronbach’s alpha value as 0.81 for the adult population. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86.
The index questions were scored between 0 (never) and 5 (always), considering the last 14 days. The total raw score obtained from the index was multiplied by four to obtain a score out of 100. The cutoff point of the original scale was 13 raw points. When interpreting the scale, those who scored 13 points or fewer and gave a “0” or “1” answer to any question were considered “at-risk” in terms of depression [18].
Sedentary Behaviour Questionnaire
The 18-item questionnaire evaluating SB on both weekdays and weekends was developed by Rosenberg et al. [19] and adapted into Turkish by Bakar et al. [20]. The questionnaire, consisting of two sets of nine questions, was evaluated separately for weekdays and weekends. The possible responses to the questions were “none,” “15 minutes or less,” “30 minutes,” “1 hour,” “2 hours,” “3 hours,” “4 hours,” “5 hours,” “6 hours or more” [19,20]. As the study was based on an average sedentary time of 1 day, the weekly total sedentary time was multiplied by 7.
The importance of being mentally active or passive during sedentary periods has been emphasized in mental health assessments [8]. Behaviors of watching television, listening to music, and traveling by car are considered mentally passive behaviors, whereas studying on the computer, reading books and magazines, playing instruments, doing handicrafts, playing video games, and spending time on the phone are considered mentally active behaviors.
Evaluation of the data
The data were evaluated using a computer program. The conformity of the data to a normal distribution was evaluated using kurtosis and skewness coefficients. For the descriptive statistics, numbers, percentages, means, and medians were used. Correlation analysis among hypothesis tests, t-tests in independent and dependent groups, and analysis of variance, chi-square, Wilcoxon, and Kruskal-Wallis tests in independent groups were used.
The CHAID (chi-squared automatic interaction detection) model was used in a decision tree analysis to evaluate the variables that predict well-being. As the dependent variable, being “atrisk” and “normal” according to the Well-Being Index were used; as independent variables, gender, department studied, income status, employment status, having COVID-19, having health problems other than COVID-19, presence of a PA disability health problem, BMI, health perception in the last month, subjective health evaluation compared to the pre-pandemic period, PA status, and sedentary period passed actively and passively in mental terms were added to the model. For statistical analysis, P≤0.05 was considered significant for all tests.
Ethics statement
To conduct the study, the necessary permission was obtained from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee (dated 02/17/2021, numbered 04/138) and the Ministry of Health, and voluntary consent was obtained from all participants. Approval was obtained from the authors of the scales used in this study. No artificial intelligence applications were used in this study.
Results
The median age of the university students was 21 years; 62.40% studied in health-related departments (nursing, midwifery, medicine, pharmacy, etc.), and 37.60% studied in non-health departments (education, science and literature, architecture, fine arts, etc.).
In total, 98.10% of the students reported that they had completed all of their courses through distance education, and 68.20% did not have an active lifestyle. While 31.10% of the students had not engaged in any PA in the last month, 32.70% had engaged in sufficient PA (Table 1).
Among all students, 12.60% were underweight, 16.10% were slightly overweight/obese, 17.80% had COVID-19 disease, and 25.70% had health problems other than COVID-19 during this period (Table 1). Among the health problems experienced, 29.50% of the students had upper respiratory tract infections, 15.65% had psychological problems (panic attacks, anxiety disorders, and depression), 10.43% had gastrointestinal system problems, 8.60% had dermatological problems, 6.95% had musculoskeletal system disorders, and 27.80% had other diseases (related to the eyes, teeth, heart, anemia, surgical operation, and thyroid).
While 19.90% of the students evaluated their health status in the previous month as poor, 47.40% stated that their health status was worse than it was a year ago (Table 1).
The average time spent sedentary by the students in a day was 11.231±4.358 hours. The mean sedentary time spent mentally passive was 4.660±2.240 hours, and the time spent mentally active was 6.571±3.335 hours (Table 2).
There was a difference in students’ daily SB frequency according to their BMI categories and perceived health status in the previous month. Those who evaluated their perceived health status as good in the last month had a shorter SB duration, while those who were overweight/obese had a higher duration (Table 1).
A total of 47.20% of the students were evaluated as being at risk (depression risk) according to their Well-Being Index answers. The Well-Being Index score was lower in those who experienced any disorder other than COVID-19 compared to those who did not experience any other disorders, in those who did not have an active lifestyle compared to those who did, and in those who did not engage in any PA compared to those who engaged in either sufficient or insufficient PA. The Well-Being Index mean score was higher in those with good health perception in the last month than in those with moderate and bad health perception and lower in those who perceived their health as worse than a year ago compared to others (P≤0.001) (Table 1).
The status of engaging in PA activities in line with the WHO recommendations varied according to gender (P=0.005), employment status, thinking of having an active lifestyle, perceived health status in the last month, and health status compared to 1 year ago (Table 1).
Compared to the pre-pandemic period, the students reported changes in their daily activities, as shown in Table 3.
There was a small positive correlation between well-being score and weekly moderate-intensity PA as well as total weekly moderate- and high-intensity activity (P≤0.001). There was a low negative correlation between well-being score and mentally passive SB time (P=0.004), while the correlation with mentally active SB time was not statistically significant (P=0.549) (Table 4).
According to the decision tree analysis model, well-being was associated with health status comparison, PA status, and mentally passive sedentary time compared with the previous year. The prediction probability of the model was 66.10%. Those who evaluated their health as worse than in the previous year had a higher possibility of their well-being being at risk than those who evaluated their health as the same as or better than in the previous year. Among those who evaluated their health as worse than in the previous year, those who did not engage in any PA were more likely to be classified in the at-risk group for well-being.
Compared to the previous year, among students who evaluated their health status as the same or better, those who did not engage in PA were more likely to be classified in the at-risk group for well-being than those who did engage in PA. Furthermore, among physically active students, those with mentally passive sedentary time exceeding 5.25 hours per day had a higher likelihood of being assigned to the at-risk group than those with 5.25 hours or less (Figure 1).
Discussion
In the current study, nearly half of the students had a low level of well-being and were at risk of depression, and the risk was higher in those who did not engage in PA. However, there is strong evidence of the positive effects of PA on physical and mental health [17]. Nonetheless, it was observed that the time that students spent on PA decreased and the time allocated to sedentary activities increased during the pandemic, which is similar to many research findings. PA is a rare factor that not only protects mental health but also reduces the negative effects of SB on health [3,21,22]. A study conducted among 28,298 students in China reported that anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts were positively related to SB and negatively related to PA [23]. In a study conducted during the pandemic period, it was stated that equivalent PA at 2,500 MET (metabolic equivalent of task) per week may be beneficial in alleviating negative emotions [24]. Another study reported that replacing 60 minutes of SB with moderate- or high-intensity PA decreased anxiety and depression symptom scores [25]. In the current study, the risk of depression was lower in those who engaged in PA compared to those who did not. However, PA alone may not be sufficient to reduce the risk of depression, and it is important to reduce the time spent sedentary [21,23].
There is increasing data on the association between increased sedentary time and adverse mental health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic [23,26]. Although there are many studies on the effects of SB on mental health, discussions have started in recent years that the type of sedentary period is important and that not all SB can be considered equivalent. It has been reported that mentally active and passive sedentary periods, which have recently entered the literature, may affect mental health differently, that mentally active periods are protective starting from the onset of depression, that passive periods increase the risk of depression, and that mentally passive SB is associated with longer SB periods and fewer breaks [8,27]. In addition, although PA reduces the risk of developing depression, it has been stated that even 420 minutes of PA per week is not effective in reducing the risk of depression in those who are sedentary for 7 hours a day or more [23]. In the current study, not engaging in PA was associated with a higher likelihood of depression, whereas among those who engaged in PA, longer mentally passive SB time was also associated with a higher likelihood of depression. These findings are valuable because they highlight the potential association between mentally passive SB and lower levels of well-being, a topic that has only recently gained attention in the literature. Therefore, it is advisable to reduce total sedentary time, especially passive SB, and promote regular PA.
Despite the many proven benefits of PA, the frequency of engaging in PA among university students decreased during the pandemic, similar to all age groups. In the current study, it was observed that only one-third of the students performed PA for the duration recommended by the WHO or longer and that the health perceptions of those who engaged in PA were better. Although some restrictions brought about by the pandemic have increased SB, it is important to promote PA to reduce the effects of SB and improve health.
Several negative health effects of daily sedentary time have also been reported. Obesity, known as the epidemic of our age, is among them [28,29]. In the current study, it was observed that overweight and obese people spent more time sedentary than did the slim individuals. In one study, the risk of developing obesity was found to be 9.6 times higher in female university students who sat for 7.5 hours or more per day [30]. In the current study, sedentary time was quite long. Given that the self-reported sedentary times were lower than those determined using an accelerometer, this time is likely longer [4,30]. Although it may not be possible to assert that prolonged SB poses significant short-term risks of chronic diseases in younger age groups such as university students, its negative effects on certain health indicators can still be observed during this period. In our study, students with prolonged SB reported a deterioration in their health status compared to the pre-pandemic period and rated their current health as “poor.” However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as they are based on individuals’ subjective perceptions of health and are derived from short-term observations conducted in a young sample.
In conclusion, this study examined the associations among SB, PA, and university students’ well-being during the pandemic. Nearly half of the students had low well-being, were at risk for depression, and spent almost half of the day sedentary, and only one-third met the WHO’s recommended level of PA. Furthermore, well-being was found to be associated with perceived health status compared to the previous year, PA engagement, and mentally passive SB time.
To protect physical and mental health, measures should be taken to reduce sedentary time, especially mentally passive sedentary time, and increase PA. Uncertainties continue due to the emergence of new variants during the pandemic, and restrictions may be applied in the case of new waves. Factors related to sedentary lifestyle nursing diagnoses should be revealed, nursing interventions should be planned, and cooperation should be carried out among different disciplines to reduce the time that students spend sedentary as much as possible [10].
Recently, there has been an increase in research on the effects of SB divided into short intervals and SB consisting of long periods. It is recommended that the measurement tools be updated to measure the different characteristics of SB.
This study has some limitations. Owing to the cross-sectional study design, it was not possible to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. As the data of the study were obtained through the self-report method, sedentary and PA periods as well as height and weight values may have been under- or over-reported. Additionally, as more than half of the participants were students enrolled in health-related university programs, the findings cannot be generalized to the overall university student population.
Notes
Conflict of interest
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Funding
None.
Data availability
Not applicable.
Author contribution
Conceptualization: SKV, EO. Data curation: SKV, EO, GB. Formal analysis: SKV, EO, GB. Investigation: SKV, EO. Methodology: SKV, EO, GB. Software: GB. Validation: SKV, EO, GB. Visualization: SKV, EO. Resources: SKV, EO, GB. Supervision: SKV, EO. Project administration: SKV, EO. Writing–original draft: SKV, EO, GB. Writing–review & editing: SKV, EO, GB. Final approval of the manuscript: all authors.
Figure. 1.
Decision tree analysis model results for evaluating the variables that predict well-being. PA, physical activity; SB, sedentary behavior; df, degrees of freedom.
Table 1.
Comparison of students’ descriptive features and characteristics of health status, daily sedentary behavior duration, Well-Being Index total score average and PA levels
Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation unless otherwise stated. Statistically significant results are marked in bold.
PA, physical activity; WHO, World Health Organization; TL, Turkish Lira; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019.
a)Difference with obese.
b)Difference with well.
c)Difference with worse.
d)Difference with medium.
e)Difference with same.
f)Difference with who never did PA.
g)Difference with inadequate PA.
Table 2.
Sedentary behaviors and the time allocated to these behaviors in an average day (hours)
Variable
For 1 day
Z (P-value)
t (P-value)
Weekdays
Weekend
One day
Average (Min–Max)
Median (25%–75%)
Average (Min–Max)
Median (25%–75%)
Average (Min–Max)
Median (25%–75%)
Watching TV (including VCD/DVD)
2.88±1.86 (0.00–6.00)
3.00 (1.00–4.00)
2.44±1.86 (0.00–6.00)
2.00 (1.00–4.00)
2.76±1.71 (0.00–6.00)
2.42 (1.29–4.14)
5.726 (≤0.001)
Playing computer or video games
1.10±±1.56 (0.00–6.00)
0.25 (0.00–2.00)
1.06±±1.55 (0.00–6.00)
0.25 (0.00–2.00)
1.09±0.51 (0.00–6.00)
1.09±0.51 (0.00–6.00)
0.068 (0.946)
Sitting down to listen to music from the radio, cassette, or CD
1.47±1.40 (0.00–6.00)
1.00 (0.50–2.00)
1.41±1.27 (0.00–6.00)
1.00 (0.25–2.00)
1.45±1.28 (0.00–6.00)
1.0 (0.64–2.00)
0.193 (0.847)
Sitting down talking on the phone/being busy
1.36±1.44 (0.00–6.00)
1.00 (0.25–2.00)
1.26±1.33 (0.00–6.00)
1.0 (0.25–2.00)
1.33±1.35 (0.00–6.00)
1 (0.43–1.71)
2.063 (0.039)
Working with the computer (lessons, homework, projects, filling out forms, etc.)
2.67±1.81 (0.00–6.00)
3.00 (1.00–4.00)
2.20±1.72 (0.00–6.00)
2.00 (1.00–3.00)
2.53±1.70 (0.00–6.00)
2.43 (1.00–3.71)
7.346 (≤0.001)
Sitting down reading a book or magazine
1.11±1.15 (0.00–6.00)
1.00 (0.50–1.00)
1.14±1.13 (0.00–6.00)
1.00 (0.25–2.00)
1.12±1.10 (0.00–6.00)
0.77 (0.00–6.00)
2.473 (0.013)
Playing a musical instrument
0.14±0.48 (0.00–3.00)
0.00 (0.00–0.00)
0.15±0.56 (0.00–5.00)
0.00 (0.00–0.00)
0.14±0.45 (0.00–3.00)
0 (0.0–3.0)
0.567 (0.571)
Dealing with crafts
0.37±0.86 (0.00–6.00)
0.00 (0.00–0.25)
0.33±0.77 (0.00–6.00)
0.00 (0.00–0.25)
0.36±0.80 (0.00–6.00)
0 (0.00–0.29)
1.742 (0.082)
Traveling by car, bus, and train or driving vehicles
0.46±0.72 (0.00–4.00)
0.25 (0.00–0.50)
0.41±0.73 (0.00–6.00)
0.25 (0.00–0.50)
0.45±0.66 (0.00–4.00)
0.25 (0.00–0.50)
2.843 (0.004)
Total
11.56±4.60 (0–20)
11.25 (8.25–15.25)
10.41±4.38 (0.00–18.75)
10.25 (7.00–14.00)
11.23±4.36 (0.00–19.21)
11.04 (8.29–14.94)
8.427 (≤0.001)
8.473 (≤0.001)
Mentally active sedentary
6.74±3.48
6.14±3.41
6.57±3.33
6.133 (≤0.001)
Mentally passive sedentary
4.82±2.62
4.262±2.54
4.66±2.24
5.872 (≤0.001)
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation (Min–Max) or median (interquartile range) unless otherwise stated.
Table 3.
Comparison of the time students spent on various activities during the COVID-19 pandemic period and during the pre-pandemic period
Activity
Same
Increased
Decreased
Never do
Social activity
34 (7.90)
12 (2.80)
372 (86.90)
10 (2.30)
The time you allocate for physical activity
66 (15.40)
76 (17.80)
276 (64.50)
10 (2.30)
The time you spend online outside of class
53 (12.40)
349 (81.50)
25 (5.80)
1 (0.20)
The time you spend on the smartphone outside of class
55 (12.90)
342 (79.90)
30 (7.00)
1 (0.20)
Television viewing time (including VCD/DVD videos)
77 (18.00)
250 (58.40)
61 (14.30)
40 (9.30)
The time you spend playing digital games
101 (23.60)
145 (33.90)
61 (14.30)
121 (28.30)
Time spent sitting (talking the phone, listening to music, doing crafts, etc.)
50 (11.70)
347 (81.10)
29 (6.80)
2 (0.50)
The time you spend working with a computer (lecture, homework, project, filling out forms, etc.)
21 (4.90)
366 (85.50)
35 (8.20)
6 (1.40)
The time you spend sitting reading a book or magazine
84 (19.60)
226 (52.80)
103 (24.10)
15 (3.50)
The time spent traveling (car, bus, train, etc.)
65 (15.20)
52 (12.10)
283 (66.10)
28 (6.50)
Values are presented as number (%).
COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019.
Table 4.
The relationship of the mean wellness score with daily mentally active and mentally passive weekly moderate and vigorous-intensity physical activity periods
Mentally active sedentary time
Mentally passive sedentary time
Total duration of moderate-intensity physical activity per week
Total duration of vigorous-intensity physical activity per week
Total duration of vigorous and moderate-intensity physical activity per week
Wellness score
–0.03
–0.14
0.19
0.08
0.19
P-value
0.549
0.004
≤0.001
0.084
≤0.001
References
1. Park JH, Moon JH, Kim HJ, Kong MH, Oh YH. Sedentary lifestyle: overview of updated evidence of potential health risks. Korean J Fam Med 2020;41:365-73.
2. Patterson R, McNamara E, Tainio M, de Sa TH, Smith AD, Sharp SJ, et al. Sedentary behaviour and risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality, and incident type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and dose response meta-analysis. Eur J Epidemiol 2018;33:811-29.
3. Zhao R, Bu W, Chen Y, Chen X. The dose-response associations of sedentary time with chronic diseases and the risk for all-cause mortality affected by different health status: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Nutr Health Aging 2020;24:63-70.
4. Castro O, Vergeer I, Bennie J, Cagas J, Biddle SJ. Using the behavior change wheel to understand university students’ prolonged sitting time and identify potential intervention strategies. Int J Behav Med 2021;28:360-71.
6. Stockwell S, Trott M, Tully M, Shin J, Barnett Y, Butler L, et al. Changes in physical activity and sedentary behaviours from before to during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown: a systematic review. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med 2021;7:e000960.
7. Owen N, Healy GN, Dempsey PC, Salmon J, Timperio A, Clark BK, et al. Sedentary behavior and public health: integrating the evidence and identifying potential solutions. Annu Rev Public Health 2020;41:265-87.
9. Hallgren M, Owen N, Stubbs B, Zeebari Z, Vancampfort D, Schuch F, et al. Passive and mentally-active sedentary behaviors and incident major depressive disorder: a 13-year cohort study. J Affect Disord 2018;241:579-85.
14. Pengpid S, Peltzer K. Sedentary behaviour, physical activity and life satisfaction, happiness and perceived health status in university students from 24 countries. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16:2084.
16. Hales CM, Fryar CD, Carroll MD, Freedman DS, Ogden CL. Trends in obesity and severe obesity prevalence in US youth and adults by sex and age, 2007-2008 to 2015-2016. JAMA 2018;319:1723-5.
18. Eser E, Cevik C, Baydur H, Gunes S, Esgin TA, Oztekin CS, et al. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the WHO-5, in adults and older adults for its use in primary care settings. Prim Health Care Res Dev 2019;20:e100.
19. Rosenberg DE, Norman GJ, Wagner N, Patrick K, Calfas KJ, Sallis JF, et al. Reliability and validity of the Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ) for adults. J Phys Act Health 2010;7:697-705.
20. Bakar Y, Tugral A, Ozel A, Altuntas YD, Yakut Y. Reliability and validity of sedentary behavior questionnaire in Turkish population: evaluation of psychometric properties. Middle East J Rehabil Health 2018;5:e63576.
21. Brailovskaia J, Cosci F, Mansueto G, Miragall M, Herrero R, Banos RM, et al. The association between depression symptoms, psychological burden caused by COVID-19 and physical activity: an investigation in Germany, Italy, Russia, and Spain. Psychiatry Res 2021;295:113596.
22. Ekelund U, Tarp J, Steene-Johannessen J, Hansen BH, Jefferis B, Fagerland MW, et al. Dose-response associations between accelerometry measured physical activity and sedentary time and all cause mortality: systematic review and harmonised meta-analysis. BMJ 2019;366:l4570.
23. Jiang L, Cao Y, Ni S, Chen X, Shen M, Lv H, et al. Association of sedentary behavior with anxiety, depression, and suicide ideation in college students. Front Psychiatry 2020;11:566098.
24. Zhang Y, Zhang H, Ma X, Di Q. Mental health problems during the COVID-19 pandemics and the mitigation effects of exercise: a longitudinal study of college students in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17:3722.
25. Kandola AA, Del Pozo Cruz B, Osborn DP, Stubbs B, Choi KW, Hayes JF, et al. Impact of replacing sedentary behaviour with other movement behaviours on depression and anxiety symptoms: a prospective cohort study in the UK Biobank. BMC Med 2021;19:133.
26. Pears M, Kola-Palmer S, De Azevedo LB. The impact of sitting time and physical activity on mental health during COVID-19 lockdown. Sport Sci Health 2022;18:179-91.
27. Werneck AO, Romanzini M, Silva DR, Oyeyemi AL, Bueno MRO, Ronque ERV, et al. Association of mentally-passive and mentally-active sedentary behaviors with device-measured bouts and breaks of sedentary time in adolescents. Health Promot Perspect 2021;11:109-14.
28. Franco DC, Ferraz NL, Sousa TF. Sedentary behavior among university students: a systematic review. Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum 2019;21:e56485.
29. Liu W, Yuan Q, Zeng N, McDonough DJ, Tao K, Peng Q, et al. Relationships between college students’ sedentary behavior, sleep quality, and body mass index. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18:3946.
30. Vainshelboim B, Bopp CM, Wilson OW, Papalia Z, Bopp M. Behavioral and physiological health-related risk factors in college students. Am J Lifestyle Med 2021;15:322-9.
The effects of sedentary behavior types and physical activity on well-being in university youth during the pandemic: a pilot study
Figure. 1. Decision tree analysis model results for evaluating the variables that predict well-being. PA, physical activity; SB, sedentary behavior; df, degrees of freedom.
Graphical abstract
Figure. 1.
Graphical abstract
The effects of sedentary behavior types and physical activity on well-being in university youth during the pandemic: a pilot study
Characteristic
No. (%)
Time of sedentary behavior in 1 day (h)
Well-Being Index
PA to meet the WHO recommendation
Never do
Inadequate
Adequate
Total
11.23±4.39
51.08±21.30
133 (31.10)
155 (36.20)
140 (32.70)
Sex
Female
318 (74.30)
11.29±4.15
50.44±20.77
94 (29.60)
129 (40.60)
95 (29.90)
Male
110 (25.70)
11.05±4.93
52.80±22.76
39 (35.50)
26 (23.60)
45 (40.90)
t or χ2 (P-value)
0.72 (0.481)
1.002 (0.317)
10.425 (0.005)
Working status
Workless
358 (76.60)
11.18±4.40
51.27±21.44
96 (29.30)
134 (40.90)
98 (29.90)
Full time worker
55 (12.90)
11.16±4.65
47.13±22.60
21 (38.20)
11 (20.00)
23 (41.80)
Part time worker
26 (6.10)
11.49±3.11
53.84±17.82
9 (34.60)
6 (23.10)
11 (42.30)
Hourly work
19 (4.40)
11.23±4.26
54.74±19.00
7 (36.80)
4 (21.10)
8 (42.10)
F or χ2 (P-value)
0.231 (0.874)
0.972 (0.406)
13.378 (0.037)
Monthly income (TL)
Lower than 1,000
47 (11.00)
10.24±4.10
50.04±21.63
14 (29.80)
20 (42.60)
13 (27.70)
1,001–2,589
160 (37.40)
11.03±4.38
53.57±21.05
50 (31.30)
56 (35.00)
54 (33.80)
2,590–5,000
155 (36.20)
11.48±4.32
49.42±21.83
51 (32.90)
53 (34.20)
51 (32.90)
5,001–8,436
45 (10.50)
11.98±4.60
51.11±20.38
11 (24.40)
20 (44.40)
14 (31.10)
≥8,437
21 (4.90)
11.55±4.38
45.90±20.02
7 (33.30)
6 (28.60)
8 (38.10)
F or χ2 (P-value)
1.192 (0.314)
1.123 (0.345)
3.449 (0.903)
Department
Health-related department
276 (62.40)
11.317±4.335
52.15±20.89
77 (28.80)
99 (37.10)
91 (34.10)
Non-health departments
161 (37.60)
11.087±4.407
49.21±9.00
56 (34.80)
56 (34.80)
49 (30.40)
t or χ2 (P-value)
0.526 (0.599)
1.381 (0.168)
1.697 (0.428)
Presence of a health condition that prevents PA
Yes
23 (5.40)
10.33±6.32
45.04±25.13
12 (52.20)
5 (21.70)
6 (26.10)
No
405 (94.60)
11.28±4.23
51.39±21.05
121 (29.90)
150 (37.00)
134 (33.10)
t or χ2 (P-value)
0.717 (0.481)
1.391 (0.165)
5.214 (0.074)
Having had COVID-19 infection
Yes
76 (17.80)
11.01±4.25
51.26±21.22
21 (27.60)
32 (42.10)
23 (30.30)
No
352 (82.20)
11.28±4.38
51.00±21.35
112 (31.80)
123 (34.90)
117 (33.20)
t or χ2 (P-value)
0.495 (0.621)
0.098 (0.922)
1.407 (0.495)
Diagnosing another disease
Yes
110 (25.70)
11.26±4.21
41.75±21.11
40 (36.40)
39 (35.50)
31 (28.20)
No
318 (74.30)
11.22±4.41
54.26±20.43
93(29.20)
116 (36.50)
109 (34.30)
t or χ2 (P-value)
0.077 (939)
5.492 (≤0.001)
2.284 (0.319)
Thinking that you have an active lifestyle
Yes
136 (31.80)
11.09±4.45
59.38±22.58
34 (25.00)
38 (27.90)
64 (47.10)
No
292 (68.20)
11.30±4.32
47.16±19.53
99 (33.90)
117 (40.10)
76 (26.00)
t or χ2 (P-value)
0.463 (0.644)
5.727 (≤0.001)
18.682 (≤0.001)
The state of doing PA
Who never did
133 (31.10
11.33±4.83
43.46±21.70g)
Inadequate
155 (36.20)
11.25±3.97
52. 08±19.67f)
Adequate
140 (32.70)
11.12±4.34
57.11±20.60f)
F or χ2 (P-value)
0.079 (0.924)
15.257 (≤0.001)
Perceived health status in the past month
Worse
85 (19.90)
11.34±4.59
36.85±20.64b,d)
33 (38.80)
29 (34.10)
23 (27.10)
Medium
170 (39.70)
11.96±3.95b)
48.71±18.96b,c)
59 (34.70)
64 (37.60)
47 (27.60)
Well
173 (40.40)
10.45±4.51
60.32±19.32c,d)
41(23.70)
62 (35.80)
70 (40.50)
F or χ2 (P-value)
5.277 (0.005)
43.565 (≤0.001)
10.939 (0.027)
Health status comparison to 1 year ago
Worse
203 (47.40)
11.45±4.35
41.79±19.35e)
80 (39.40)
75 (36.90)
48 (23.60)
Same
114 (33.70)
10.74±4.57
57.72±18.01c)
34 (23.60)
54 (37.50)
56 (38.90)
Better
81 (18.90)
11.54±3.94
62.37±21.65c)
19 (23.50)
26 (32.10)
36 (44.40)
F or χ2 (P-value)
1.362 (0.254)
45.535 (≤0.001)
19.296 (0.001)
Body mass index
Underweight
54 (12.60)
10.43±4.60a)
46.67±22.45
22 (40.70)
19 (35.20)
13 (24.10)
Normal
305 (71.30)
11.09±4.27a)
51.37±21.39
62 (30.20)
114 (37.40)
99 (32.50)
Overweight/obese
69 (16.10)
12.49±4.34
53.04±19.78
19 (27.50)
22 (31.90)
28 (40.60)
F or χ2 (P-value)
3.981 (0.019)
1.484 (0.228)
5.013 (0.0286)
Variable
For 1 day
Z (P-value)
t (P-value)
Weekdays
Weekend
One day
Average (Min–Max)
Median (25%–75%)
Average (Min–Max)
Median (25%–75%)
Average (Min–Max)
Median (25%–75%)
Watching TV (including VCD/DVD)
2.88±1.86 (0.00–6.00)
3.00 (1.00–4.00)
2.44±1.86 (0.00–6.00)
2.00 (1.00–4.00)
2.76±1.71 (0.00–6.00)
2.42 (1.29–4.14)
5.726 (≤0.001)
Playing computer or video games
1.10±±1.56 (0.00–6.00)
0.25 (0.00–2.00)
1.06±±1.55 (0.00–6.00)
0.25 (0.00–2.00)
1.09±0.51 (0.00–6.00)
1.09±0.51 (0.00–6.00)
0.068 (0.946)
Sitting down to listen to music from the radio, cassette, or CD
1.47±1.40 (0.00–6.00)
1.00 (0.50–2.00)
1.41±1.27 (0.00–6.00)
1.00 (0.25–2.00)
1.45±1.28 (0.00–6.00)
1.0 (0.64–2.00)
0.193 (0.847)
Sitting down talking on the phone/being busy
1.36±1.44 (0.00–6.00)
1.00 (0.25–2.00)
1.26±1.33 (0.00–6.00)
1.0 (0.25–2.00)
1.33±1.35 (0.00–6.00)
1 (0.43–1.71)
2.063 (0.039)
Working with the computer (lessons, homework, projects, filling out forms, etc.)
2.67±1.81 (0.00–6.00)
3.00 (1.00–4.00)
2.20±1.72 (0.00–6.00)
2.00 (1.00–3.00)
2.53±1.70 (0.00–6.00)
2.43 (1.00–3.71)
7.346 (≤0.001)
Sitting down reading a book or magazine
1.11±1.15 (0.00–6.00)
1.00 (0.50–1.00)
1.14±1.13 (0.00–6.00)
1.00 (0.25–2.00)
1.12±1.10 (0.00–6.00)
0.77 (0.00–6.00)
2.473 (0.013)
Playing a musical instrument
0.14±0.48 (0.00–3.00)
0.00 (0.00–0.00)
0.15±0.56 (0.00–5.00)
0.00 (0.00–0.00)
0.14±0.45 (0.00–3.00)
0 (0.0–3.0)
0.567 (0.571)
Dealing with crafts
0.37±0.86 (0.00–6.00)
0.00 (0.00–0.25)
0.33±0.77 (0.00–6.00)
0.00 (0.00–0.25)
0.36±0.80 (0.00–6.00)
0 (0.00–0.29)
1.742 (0.082)
Traveling by car, bus, and train or driving vehicles
0.46±0.72 (0.00–4.00)
0.25 (0.00–0.50)
0.41±0.73 (0.00–6.00)
0.25 (0.00–0.50)
0.45±0.66 (0.00–4.00)
0.25 (0.00–0.50)
2.843 (0.004)
Total
11.56±4.60 (0–20)
11.25 (8.25–15.25)
10.41±4.38 (0.00–18.75)
10.25 (7.00–14.00)
11.23±4.36 (0.00–19.21)
11.04 (8.29–14.94)
8.427 (≤0.001)
8.473 (≤0.001)
Mentally active sedentary
6.74±3.48
6.14±3.41
6.57±3.33
6.133 (≤0.001)
Mentally passive sedentary
4.82±2.62
4.262±2.54
4.66±2.24
5.872 (≤0.001)
Activity
Same
Increased
Decreased
Never do
Social activity
34 (7.90)
12 (2.80)
372 (86.90)
10 (2.30)
The time you allocate for physical activity
66 (15.40)
76 (17.80)
276 (64.50)
10 (2.30)
The time you spend online outside of class
53 (12.40)
349 (81.50)
25 (5.80)
1 (0.20)
The time you spend on the smartphone outside of class
55 (12.90)
342 (79.90)
30 (7.00)
1 (0.20)
Television viewing time (including VCD/DVD videos)
77 (18.00)
250 (58.40)
61 (14.30)
40 (9.30)
The time you spend playing digital games
101 (23.60)
145 (33.90)
61 (14.30)
121 (28.30)
Time spent sitting (talking the phone, listening to music, doing crafts, etc.)
50 (11.70)
347 (81.10)
29 (6.80)
2 (0.50)
The time you spend working with a computer (lecture, homework, project, filling out forms, etc.)
21 (4.90)
366 (85.50)
35 (8.20)
6 (1.40)
The time you spend sitting reading a book or magazine
84 (19.60)
226 (52.80)
103 (24.10)
15 (3.50)
The time spent traveling (car, bus, train, etc.)
65 (15.20)
52 (12.10)
283 (66.10)
28 (6.50)
Mentally active sedentary time
Mentally passive sedentary time
Total duration of moderate-intensity physical activity per week
Total duration of vigorous-intensity physical activity per week
Total duration of vigorous and moderate-intensity physical activity per week
Wellness score
–0.03
–0.14
0.19
0.08
0.19
P-value
0.549
0.004
≤0.001
0.084
≤0.001
Table 1. Comparison of students’ descriptive features and characteristics of health status, daily sedentary behavior duration, Well-Being Index total score average and PA levels
Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation unless otherwise stated. Statistically significant results are marked in bold.
PA, physical activity; WHO, World Health Organization; TL, Turkish Lira; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019.
Difference with obese.
Difference with well.
Difference with worse.
Difference with medium.
Difference with same.
Difference with who never did PA.
Difference with inadequate PA.
Table 2. Sedentary behaviors and the time allocated to these behaviors in an average day (hours)
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation (Min–Max) or median (interquartile range) unless otherwise stated.
Table 3. Comparison of the time students spent on various activities during the COVID-19 pandemic period and during the pre-pandemic period
Values are presented as number (%).
COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019.
Table 4. The relationship of the mean wellness score with daily mentally active and mentally passive weekly moderate and vigorous-intensity physical activity periods
