Working at the office or from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study of temporal patterns of sitting and non-sitting among normal-weight and overweight Brazilian office workers

Table 4 Effects of workplace (work at the office [WAO] vs. work from home [WFH]) and body mass index (BMI; normal-weight [BMI < 25 kg/m²] vs. overweight [BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²]) for each isometric log-ratio (ilr) coordinate. The table shows effect size (partial eta squared, \(\eta_{p}^{2}\) ), F-statistics, and p-value

ilr-coordinates	Workplace: WAO vs. WFH			BMI: < 25 vs. ≥ 25
ilr-coordinates	\(\eta_{p}^{2}\)	F	p-value	\(\eta_{p}^{2}\)	F	p-value
Working days
ilr₁: time-in-bed/awake	0.16	18.50	< 0.001	< 0.01	0.54	0.47
ilr₂: sitting/non-sitting	0.21	25.14	< 0.001	0.02	2.08	0.15
ilr₃: sitting short/moderate + long	0.05	4.30	0.04	0.06	7.08	0.01
ilr₄: sitting moderate/long	0.14	17.29	< 0.001	< 0.01	0.38	0.54
ilr₅: non-sitting short/long	0.08	8.24	0.005	0.01	0.83	0.37
Non-working days
ilr₁: time-in-bed/awake	< 0.01	0.01	0.94	0.02	2.66	0.11
ilr₂: sitting/non-sitting	0.04	3.75	0.06	0.10	12.29	< 0.001
ilr₃: sitting short/moderate + long	0.04	3.29	0.07	0.13	16.18	< 0.001
ilr₄: sitting moderate/long	0.01	0.80	0.37	0.04	4.76	0.03
ilr₅: non-sitting short/long	0.02	2.13	0.15	0.01	1.01	0.32

The ANCOVA models treated workplace (WAO vs. WFH) and BMI (normal-weight vs. overweight) as between-subjects factors. Models were adjusted for gender and age. Results with p < 0.05 are shown in bold

ISSN: 2731-4391