Uptake and factors that influence the use of ‘sit less, move more’ occupational intervention strategies in Spanish office employees

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

Nicholas D Gilson¹  Joan Carles Martori⁴  Iván Martínez-Lemos³  Ángel Manuel González-Suárez⁵  Anna Puig-Ribera²  Montserrat Martin²  Judit Bort-Roig² 

[1] The University of Queensland, School of Human Movement Studies, St. Lucia Campus, Brisbane, 4072, Australia;Centre d’Estudis Sanitaris i Socials, Universitat de Vic-Universitat Central de Catalunya (UVic-UCC), c/ Miquel Martí i Pol, Vic, 1 08500, Spain;Facultad CC.EE. do Deporte, Universidad de Vigo, Campus A Xunqueira s/n, Pontevedra, 36005, Spain;Grup de Recerca DAM (Data Analysis and Modeling), Universitat de Vic-Universitat Central de Catalunya (UVic-UCC), c/Sagrada Família 7, Barcelona, 08500, Vic, Spain;Departamento de Educación Física y Deportiva, Universidad del País Vasco, Portal de Lasarte 71, Vitoria-Gasteiz, 01007, Spain

关键词: Employee experiences;    Multi-method study;    Walking;    Sedentary behaviour;    Occupational sitting;    Workplace;   

Others  :  1146183
DOI  :  10.1186/s12966-014-0152-6

 received in 2014-09-10, accepted in 2014-11-28,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Little is known about the types of ‘sit less, move more’ strategies that appeal to office employees, or what factors influence their use. This study assessed the uptake of strategies in Spanish university office employees engaged in an intervention, and those factors that enabled or limited strategy uptake.

Methods

The study used a mixed method design. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with academics and administrators (n = 12; 44 ± 12 mean SD age; 6 women) at three points across the five-month intervention, and data used to identify factors that influenced the uptake of strategies. Employees who finished the intervention then completed a survey rating (n = 88; 42 ± 8 mean SD age; 51 women) the extent to which strategies were used [never (1) to usually (4)]; additional survey items (generated from interviewee data) rated the impact of factors that enabled or limited strategy uptake [no influence (1) to very strong influence (4)]. Survey score distributions and averages were calculated and findings triangulated with interview data.

Results

Relative to baseline, 67% of the sample increased step counts post intervention (n = 59); 60% decreased occupational sitting (n = 53). ‘Active work tasks’ and ‘increases in walking intensity’ were the strategies most frequently used by employees (89% and 94% sometimes or usually utilised these strategies); ‘walk-talk meetings’ and ‘lunchtime walking groups’ were the least used (80% and 96% hardly ever or never utilised these strategies). ‘Sitting time and step count logging’ was the most important enabler of behaviour change (mean survey score of 3.1 ± 0.8); interviewees highlighted the motivational value of being able to view logged data through visual graphics in a dedicated website, and gain feedback on progress against set goals. ‘Screen based work’ (mean survey score of 3.2 ± 0.8) was the most significant barrier limiting the uptake of strategies. Inherent time pressures and cultural norms that dictated sedentary work practices limited the adoption of ‘walk-talk meetings’ and ‘lunch time walking groups’.

Conclusions

The findings provide practical insights into which strategies and influences practitioners need to target to maximise the impact of ‘sit less, move more’ occupational intervention strategies.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Bort-Roig et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Thorp A, Owen N, Neuhaus M, Dunstan DW: Sedentary behaviors and subsequent health outcomes in adults a systematic review of longitudinal studies, 1996–2011. Am J Prev Med 2011, 41(2):207-215.
• [2]Yates T, Khunti K, Wilmot EG, Brady E, Webb D, Srinivasan B, Henson J, Talbot D, Davies MJ: Self-reported sitting time and markers of inflammation, insulin resistance, and adiposity. Am J Prev Med 2012, 42(1):1-7.
• [3]Ford ES, Caspersen CJ: Sedentary behaviour and cardiovascular disease: a review of prospective studies. Int J Epidemiol 2012, 41(5):1338-1353.
• [4]Chau JY, Grunseit AC, Stamatakis E, Brown WJ, Matthews CE, Bauman AE, van der Ploeg HP: Daily sitting time and all-causes mortality: A meta-analysis. PLoS One 2013, 8(11):e80000.
• [5]Ryde GC, Helen EB, Peeters GME, Gilson ND, Brown WJ: Desk-Based Occupational Sitting Patterns. Am J Prev Med 2013, 45(4):448-452.
• [6]Gilson ND, Suppini A, Ryde GC, Brown HE, Brown WJ: Does the use of standing “hot” desks change sedentary work time in an open plan office? Prev Med 2012, 54(1):65-67.
• [7]Straker L, Abbott RA, Heiden M, Mathiassen SE, Toomingas A: Sit-stand desks in call centres: associations of use and ergonomics awareness with sedentary behavior. Appl Ergon 2013, 44(4):517-522.
• [8]Neuhaus M, Healy GN, Fjeldsoe BS, Lawler S, Owen N, Dunstan DW, LaMontagne AD, Eakin EG: Iterative development of Stand Up Australia: a multi-component intervention to reduce workplace sitting. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2014, 11:21. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Speck RM, Schmitz KH: Energy expenditure comparison: a pilot study of standing instead of sitting at work for obesity prevention. Prev Med 2011, 52(3–4):283-284.
• [10]Tudor-Locke C, Schuna JJ, Frensham L, Proenca M: Changing the way we work: elevating energy expenditure with workstation alternatives. Int J obesity 2014, 38(6):755-765.
• [11]Hamilton MT, Healy GN, Dunstan DW, Zderic T, Owen N: Too little exercise and too mjuch sitting: Inactivity physicology and the need for new recommendations on sedentary behaviour. Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep 2008, 2:292-298.
• [12]Dunstan DW, Kingwell BA, Larsen R, Healy GN, Cerin E, Hamilton MT, Shaw JE, Bertovic DA, Zimmet PZ, Salmon J, Owen N: Breaking Up Prolonged Sitting Reduces Postprandial Glucose and Insulin Responses. Diabetes Care 2012, 35:976-983.
• [13]Chan CB, Ryan DAJ, Tudor-Locke C: Health benefits of a pedometer-based physical activity intervention in sedentary workers. Prev Med 2004, 39(6):1215-1222.
• [14]Gilson ND, Puig-ribera A, Mckenna J, Brown WJ, Burton NW, Cooke CB: Do walking strategies to increase physical activity reduce reported sitting in workplaces: a randomized control trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2009, 6:43. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Freak-poli R, Wolfe R, Backholer K, De Courten M, Peeters A: Impact of a pedometer-based workplace health program on cardiovascular and diabetes risk profile. Prev Med 2011, 53:162-171.
• [16]Tudor-locke C, Craig CL, Thyfault JP, Spence JC: A step-defined sedentary lifestyle index: < 5000 steps/day. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2013, 114:100-114.
• [17]Gilson ND, Faulkner G, Murphy MH, Umstattd Meyer MR, Washington T, Ryde GC, Arbour-Nicitopoulos KP, Dillon KA: Walk @ Work: An automated intervention to increase walking in university employees not achieving 10, 000 daily steps. Prev Med 2013, 56:283-287.
• [18]Healy GN, Eakin EG, Lamontagne AD, Owen N, Winkler EAH, Wiesner G, Gunning L, Neuhaus M, Lawler S, Fjeldsoe BS, Dunstan DW: Reducing sitting time in office workers: short-term efficacy of a multicomponent intervention. Prev Med 2013, 57(1):43-48.
• [19]Chau JY, Daley M, Dunn S, Srinivasan A, Do A, Bauman AE: The effectiveness of sit-stand workstations for changing office workers ’sitting time: results from the Stand @ Work randomized controlled trial pilot. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2014, 11:127. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Grunseit AC, Chau JY-Y, van der Ploeg HP, Bauman A: “Thinking on your feet”: A qualitative evaluation of sit-stand desks in an Australian workplace. BMC Public Health 2013, 13(1):365. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21]Chau JY, Daley M, Srinivasan A, Dunn S, Bauman AE, van der Ploeg HP: Desk-based workers ’ perspectives on using sit-stand workstations: a qualitative analysis of the Stand @ Work study. BMC Public Health 2014, 14:752. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Gilson N, Mckenna J, Cooke C: Experiences of route and task-based walking in a university community: qualitative perspectives in a randomized control trial. J Phys Act Health 2008, 5(Supp 1):S176-S182.
• [23]Cooley D, Pedersen S, Mainsbridge C: Assessment of the impact of a workplace intervention to reduce prolonged occupational sitting time. Qual Health Res 2014, 24(1):90-101.
• [24]Greene J, Carcelli V: Making paradigmatic sense of Mixed Methods practice. In Hanbook Mixed Methods in social and behavioral research. Edited by Tashakkori A, Teddlie C. Sage, California; 2003:91-110.
• [25]Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjo M, Bauman A, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, Pratt M, Ekelund U, Yngve A, Sallis JF, Oja P: International physical activity questionnaire : 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003, 35(8):1381-1395.
• [26]Gardner P, Campagna P: Pedometers as measurement tools and motivational devices: new insights for researchers and practitioners. Heal Promot Pr 2011, 12(1):55-62.
• [27]Lauzon N, Chan CB, Myers AM: Participant experiences in a workplace pedometer-based physical activity program. J Phys Act Health 2008, 5:675-687.
• [28]Heesch K, Dinger M, McClary K, Rice K: Experiences of women in a mini- mal contact pedometer-based intervention: a qualitative study. Women Health 2005, 41:97-116.
• [29]Bort-Roig J, Gilson ND, Puig-Ribera A, Contreras RS, Trost SG: Measuring and influencing physical activity with Smartphone technology: a systematic review. Sport Med 2014, 44(5):671-686.
• [30]Fukuoka Y, Lindgren T, Jong SS: Qualitative exploration of the acceptability of a mobile phone and pedometer-based physical activity program in a diverse sample of sedentary women. Public Health Nurs 2012, 29(3):232-240.
• [31]Neuhaus M, Eakin EG, Straker L, Owen N, Dunstan DW, Reid N, Healy GN: Reducing occupational sedentary time: a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence on activity-permissive workstations. Obes Rev 2014, 15:822-838.