Dataset Information

"Could you sit down please?" A qualitative analysis of employees' experiences of standing in normally-seated workplace meetings.

ABSTRACT: Office workers spend most of their working day sitting, and prolonged sitting has been associated with increased risk of poor health. Standing in meetings has been proposed as a strategy by which to reduce workplace sitting but little is known about the standing experience. This study documented workers' experiences of standing in normally seated meetings. Twenty-five participants (18+ years), recruited from three UK universities, volunteered to stand in 3 separate, seated meetings that they were already scheduled to attend. They were instructed to stand when and for however long they deemed appropriate, and gave semi-structured interviews after each meeting. Verbatim transcripts were analysed using Framework Analysis. Four themes, central to the experience of standing in meetings, were extracted: physical challenges to standing; implications of standing for meeting engagement; standing as norm violation; and standing as appropriation of power. Participants typically experienced some physical discomfort from prolonged standing, apparently due to choosing to stand for as long as possible, and noted practical difficulties of fully engaging in meetings while standing. Many participants experienced marked psychological discomfort due to concern at being seen to be violating a strong perceived sitting norm. While standing when leading the meeting was felt to confer a sense of power and control, when not leading the meeting participants felt uncomfortable at being misperceived to be challenging the authority of other attendees. These findings reveal important barriers to standing in normally-seated meetings, and suggest strategies for acclimatising to standing during meetings. Physical discomfort might be offset by building standing time slowly and incorporating more sit-stand transitions. Psychological discomfort may be lessened by notifying other attendees about intentions to stand. Organisational buy-in to promotional strategies for standing may be required to dispel perceptions of sitting norms, and to progress a wider workplace health and wellbeing agenda.

SUBMITTER: Mansfield L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6019091 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSit-stand desk interventions have the potential to reduce workplace sedentary behaviour and improve employee health. However, the extent of sit-stand desk use varies between employees and in different organisational contexts. Framed by organisational cultural theory and product design theory, this study examined employees' lived experience of taking part in a workplace sit-stand desk intervention, to understand the processes influencing feasibility and acceptability.MethodsParticipant observations and qualitative interviews were conducted with 15 employees from two office-based workplaces in the UK, as part of a process evaluation that ran alongside a pilot RCT of a workplace sit-stand desk intervention. Observational field notes and transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsThree themes related to the experience of using a sit-stand desk at work were generated: employees' relationship with their sit-stand desk; aspirations and outcomes related to employee health and productivity; and cultural norms and interpersonal relationships. The perceived usability of the desk varied depending on how employees interacted with the desk within their personal and organisational context. Employees reported that the perceived influence of the desk on their productivity levels shaped use of the desk; those who perceived that standing increased energy and alertness tended to stand more often. Sit-stand desks were voiced as being more acceptable than intervention strategies that involve leaving the desk, as productivity was conflated with being at the desk.ConclusionsThe findings indicate a range of organisational, social-cultural and individual-level factors that shape the feasibility and acceptability of sit-stand desk use, and suggest strategies for improving employees' experiences of using a sit-stand desk at work, which might positively influence sedentary behaviour reduction and health.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02172599, 22nd June 2014 (prospectively registered).

Project description:BackgroundA lack of physical activity and excessive sitting can contribute to poor physical health and wellbeing. The high percentage of the UK adult population in employment, and the prolonged sitting associated with desk-based office-work, make these workplaces an appropriate setting for interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour and increase physical activity. This pilot study aims to determine the effect of an office-based sit-stand workstation intervention, compared with usual desk use, on daily sitting, standing and physical activity, and to examine the factors that underlie sitting, standing and physical activity, within and outside, the workplace.Methods/designA randomised control trial (RCT) comparing the effects of a sit-stand workstation only and a multi-component sit-stand workstation intervention, with usual desk-based working practice (no sit-stand workstation) will be conducted with office workers across two organisations, over a 12 month period (N = 30). The multicomponent intervention will comprise organisational, environmental and individual elements. Objective data will be collected at baseline, and after 2-weeks, 3-months, 6-months and 12-months of the intervention. Objective measures of sitting, standing, and physical activity will be made concurrently (ActivPAL3™ and ActiGraph (GT3X+)). Activity diaries, ethnographic participant observation, and interviews with participants and key organisational personnel will be used to elicit understanding of the influence of organisational culture on sitting, standing and physical activity behaviour in the workplace.DiscussionThis study will be the first long-term sit-stand workstation intervention study utilising an RCT design, and incorporating a comprehensive process evaluation. The study will generate an understanding of the factors that encourage and restrict successful implementation of sit-stand workstation interventions, and will help inform future occupational wellbeing policy and practice. Other strengths include the objective measurement of physical activity during both work and non-work hours.Trail registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02172599, 22nd June 2014.

Project description:Differences between autistic and nonautistic people are often framed as deficits. This research considers whether some of these differences might actually be strengths. In particular, autistic people tend to be less sensitive to their social environment than nonautistic people who are easily influenced by the judgments, opinions, beliefs and actions of others. Because autistic people are less susceptible to social influence, as employees they are more likely to take action when they witness an operational inefficiency or an ethical problem in the organization. By reporting problems, autistic employees may contribute to the introduction of innovations and improvements in organizational processes and effectiveness that result in superior performance. This paper considers whether and the extent to which these differences between autistic and nonautistic employees are moderated by "moral disengagement," a set of interrelated cognitive mechanisms that allow people to make unethical decisions by deactivating moral self-regulatory processes. While previous research has shown that moral disengagement is related to unethical decisions, there is no research on whether and the extent to which autistic people are vulnerable to moral disengagement. Thirty-three autistic employees and 34 nonautistic employees completed an on-line survey to determine whether differences between autistic and nonautistic employees with regards to (1) likelihood they would voice concerns about organizational dysfunctions, and (2) degree to which they were influenced by the presence of others when deciding to intervene, are moderated by individual differences in moral disengagement. As predicted, autistic participants scored lower on moral disengagement than nonautistic participants. In terms of the moderating effects of moral disengagement, the results are mixed. Although moral disengagement reduced intervention likelihood, there was not a difference between autistic and nonautistic employees in the degree to which intervention likelihood was changed by an individual's level of moral disengagement. However, there was a difference between autistic and nonautistic employees in the extent to which acknowledging the influence of others was affected by moral disengagement. These findings suggest that autistic adults are not just more likely to intervene when they witness dysfunction or misconduct in an organizational context; they are also less likely to engage in unethical behavior in general due to lower levels of moral disengagement. The reduced susceptibility to the bystander effect evidenced by autistic adults in the workplace may be accounted for, in part, by their lower levels of moral disengagement compared with nonautistic adults.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The dose and time-pattern of sitting has been suggested in public health research to be an important determinant of risk for developing a number of diseases, including cardiovascular disorders and diabetes. The aim of the present study was to assess the time-pattern of seated and standing/walking postures amongst male and female call centre operators, on the basis of whole-shift posture recordings, analysed and described by a number of novel variables describing posture variation. METHODS: Seated vs. standing/walking was recorded using dichotomous inclinometers throughout an entire work shift for 43 male and 97 female call centre operators at 16 call centres. Data were analysed using an extensive set of variables describing occurrence of and switches between seated and standing/walking, posture similarity across the day, and compliance with standard recommendations for computer work. RESULTS: The majority of the operators, both male and female, spent more than 80% of the shift in a seated posture with an average of 10.4 switches/hour between seated and standing/walking or vice versa. Females spent, on average, 11% of the day in periods of sustained sitting longer than 1 hour; males 4.6% (p = 0.013). Only 38% and 11% of the operators complied with standard recommendations of getting an uninterrupted break from seated posture of at least 5 or 10 minutes, respectively, within each hour of work. Two thirds of all investigated variables showed coefficients of variation between subjects above 0.5. Since work tasks and contractual break schedules were observed to be essentially similar across operators and across days, this indicates that sedentary behaviours differed substantially between individuals. CONCLUSIONS: The extensive occurrence of uninterrupted seated work indicates that efforts should be made at call centres - and probably in other settings in the office sector - to introduce more physical variation in terms of standing/walking periods during the work day. We suggest the metrics used in this study for quantifying variation in sedentary behaviour to be of interest even for other dichotomous exposures relevant to occupational and public health, for instance physical activity/inactivity.

Project description:ImportanceWorkplace psychosocial resources naturally tend to cluster in some work teams. To inform work-related sleep health promotion interventions, it is important to determine the associations between clustering of workplace resources and sleep disturbances when some resources are high while others are low and to mimic an actual intervention using observational data.ObjectiveTo examine whether clustering of and changes in workplace psychosocial resources are associated with sleep disturbances among workers.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based cohort study used data from the Swedish Longitudinal Occupational Survey of Health (2012-2018), the Work Environment and Health in Denmark study (2012-2018), and the Finnish Public Sector Study (2008-2014), collected biennially. Statistical analysis was conducted from November 2020 to June 2022.ExposureQuestionnaires were distributed measuring leadership quality and procedural justice (ie, vertical resources) as well as collaboration culture and coworker support (ie, horizontal resources). Resources were divided into clusters of general low, intermediate vertical and low horizontal, low vertical and high horizontal, intermediate vertical and high horizontal, and general high.Main outcomes and measuresOdds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were reported from logistic regression models for the associations between the clustering of resources and concurrent and long-term sleep disturbances. Sleep disturbances were measured by self-administered questionnaires.ResultsThe study identified 114 971 participants with 219 982 participant-observations (151 021 [69%] women; mean [SD] age, 48 [10] years). Compared with participants with general low resources, other groups showed a lower prevalence of sleep disturbances, with the lowest observed in the general high group concurrently (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.37-0.40) and longitudinally after 6 years (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.48-0.57). Approximately half of the participants (27 167 participants [53%]) experienced changes in resource clusters within 2 years. Improvements in vertical or horizontal dimensions were associated with reduced odds of persistent sleep disturbances, and the lowest odds of sleep disturbances was found in the group with improvements in both vertical and horizontal dimensions (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.46-0.62). A corresponding dose-response association with sleep disturbances was observed for decline in resources (eg, decline in both dimensions: OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.54-1.97).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of workplace psychosocial resources and sleep disturbances, clustering of favorable resources was associated with a lower risk of sleep disturbances.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Epidemiological research has established sitting as a new risk factor for the development of non-communicable chronic disease. Sit-stand desks have been proposed as one strategy to reduce occupational sedentary time. This formative research study evaluated the acceptability and usability of manually and electrically operated sit-stand desks in a medium-sized government organisation located in Sydney, Australia. METHODS: Sitting time pre- and three months post -installation of the sit-stand desks was measured using validated self-report measures. Additionally, three group interviews and one key-informant interview were conducted with staff regarding perceptions about ease of, and barriers to, use and satisfaction with the sit-stand desks. All interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed for themes regarding usability and acceptability. RESULTS: Of 31 staff, 18 completed baseline questionnaires, and 13 completed follow-up questionnaires. The median proportion of sitting time for work was 85% (range 50%-95%) at baseline and 60% (range 10%-95%) at follow-up. Formal statistical testing of paired data (n=11) showed that the change from baseline to follow-up in time spent sitting (mean change=1.7 hours, p=.014) was statistically significant. From the qualitative data, reasons given for initiating use of the desks in the standing position were the potential health benefits, or a willingness to experiment or through external prompting. Factors influencing continued use included: concern for, and experience of, short and long term health impacts; perceived productivity whilst sitting and standing; practical accommodation of transitions between sitting and standing; electric or manual operation height adjustment. Several trajectories in patterns of initiation and continued use were identified that centered on the source and timing of commitment to using the desk in the standing position. CONCLUSIONS: Sit-stand desks had high usability and acceptability and reduced sitting time at work. Use could be promoted by emphasizing the health benefits, providing guidance on appropriate set-up and normalizing standing for work-related tasks.

Project description:ImportanceGender differences in interprofessional conflict may exist and precipitate differential achievement, wellness, and attrition in medicine.ObjectiveAlthough substantial attention and research has been directed toward improving gender equity in surgery and addressing overall physician wellness, research on the role of interprofessional conflict has been limited. The objective of this study was to understand scenarios driving interprofessional conflict involving women surgeons, the implications of the conflict on personal, professional, and patient outcomes, and how women surgeons navigate conflict adjudication.Design, setting, and participantsA qualitative approach was used to explore the nature, implications, and ways of navigating interprofessional workplace conflict experienced by women surgeons. The setting was a national sample of US women surgeons. Purposive and snowball sampling were used to recruit women surgeons in training or practice from annual surgical society meetings. Participants were eligible if they were currently in a surgical training program or surgical practice. Nearly all participants had experienced at least 1 workplace conflict with a nonphysician staff member resulting in a formal write-up.ExposuresA workplace conflict was defined as any conflict resulting in the nonphysician staff member taking action such as confronting the woman surgeon, reporting the event to supervisors, or filing a formal report.Main outcomes and measuresInterviews were conducted between February 19, 2019, and June 21, 2019. Recordings were transcribed and deidentified. Inductive thematic analysis was used to examine data in relation to the research questions.ResultsThirty US women surgeons (8 [27%] age 25-34 years, 16 [53%] age 35-44 years, 5 [17%] age 45-54 years, and 1 [3%] age 55-64 years) of varying surgical specialties were interviewed. Conflicts were often reported as due to a breakdown in communication or from performance-related disputes. Participants perceived personal and professional implications including self-doubt, depression, frustration, anxiety, loss of sleep, reputational harms, and delays to advancement. Participants also described potential patient safety implications primarily due to decreased communication resulting from some surgeons being hesitant to engage in subsequent interactions. Participants described a variety of navigation strategies including relationship management, rapport building, and social capital. The success of these processes tended to vary by individual circumstances, including the details of the conflict, practice setting, level of support of leadership, and individual personality of the surgeon.Conclusions and relevanceThis qualitative study highlights women surgeons' experiences with interprofessional workplace conflict. Interprofessional culture building, broader dissemination of implicit bias training, and transparent and equitable adjudication systems are potential strategies for avoiding or mitigating the implications of these conflicts.

Dataset Information

"Could you sit down please?" A qualitative analysis of employees' experiences of standing in normally-seated workplace meetings.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets