Dataset Information

Common Perceived Barriers and Facilitators for Reducing Sedentary Behaviour among Office Workers.

ABSTRACT: Qualitative studies identified barriers and facilitators associated with work-related sedentary behaviour. The objective of this study was to determine common perceived barriers and facilitators among office workers, assess subgroup differences, and describe sedentary behaviour. From two Swedish companies, 547 office workers (41 years (IQR = 35–48), 65% women, 66% highly educated) completed questionnaires on perceived barriers and facilitators, for which subgroup differences in age, gender, education, and workplace sedentary behaviour were assessed. Sedentary behaviour was measured using inclinometers (n = 311). The most frequently reported barrier was sitting is a habit (67%), which was reported more among women than men (Χ² = 5.14, p = 0.03) and more among highly sedentary office workers (Χ² = 9.26, p < 0.01). The two other most reported barriers were that standing is uncomfortable (29%) and standing is tiring (24%). Facilitators with the most support were the introduction of either standing- or walking-meetings (respectively 33% and 29%) and more possibilities or reminders for breaks (31%). The proportion spent sedentary was 64% at the workplace, 61% on working days, and 57% on non-working days. This study provides a detailed understanding of office workers’ ideas about sitting and means to reduce sitting. We advise to include the supported facilitators and individualized support in interventions to work towards more effective strategies to reduce sedentary behaviour.

SUBMITTER: Nooijen CFJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5923834 | biostudies-other | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Common Perceived Barriers and Facilitators for Reducing Sedentary Behaviour among Office Workers.

Nooijen Carla F J CFJ Kallings Lena V LV Blom Victoria V Ekblom Örjan Ö Forsell Yvonne Y Ekblom Maria M MM

International journal of environmental research and public health 20180418 4

Qualitative studies identified barriers and facilitators associated with work-related sedentary behaviour. The objective of this study was to determine common perceived barriers and facilitators among office workers, assess subgroup differences, and describe sedentary behaviour. From two Swedish companies, 547 office workers (41 years (IQR = 35–48), 65% women, 66% highly educated) completed questionnaires on perceived barriers and facilitators, for which subgroup differences in age, gender ...[more]

PMID: 29670047

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSedentary time (SED) is associated with many detrimental health outcomes, yet little is known about what factors influence one's ability to reduce SED. Even less is known about these factors in specific patient populations for whom high levels of SED may influence symptoms, such as those with chronic low back pain (cLBP). The purpose of this study was to qualitatively explore participants' perceptions of factors that influenced their ability to reduce SED across an 8-week intervention to reduce SED in adults with cLBP and elevated depressive symptoms.MethodsThree months after a theory-based intervention to break up and reduce sitting, semi-structured interviews explored factors that influenced reducing SED. Three researchers independently coded each conversation. Codes were charted and mapped with participants reviewing their own transcripts and the merged codes. The research team then defined key themes. Factors that were perceived to either facilitate behavior change or acted as barriers were identified and thematized as positive or negative determinants.ResultsCommon barriers for reducing SED included environmental constraints, opposing social norms, and productivity; these barriers were frequently encountered in the workplace. Common facilitators for reducing SED included habit development, self-monitoring tools, restructuring the physical environment, and social accountability. Notably, back pain was not a frequently reported barrier or facilitator for reducing SED.ConclusionThis sample of patients with cLBP and elevated depressive symptoms had similar determinants for reducing SED as previously reported in non-patient populations and did not appear to need strategies specific to dealing with chronic pain. Since work-related social norms and environmental factors were perceived as significant barriers to sitting less, workplace interventions that provide standing desks, offer standing meetings rooms, and/or institution-wide standing breaks may help reduce SED at work. The use of an activity monitor with sitting reminders and education regarding how to use the reminders as external cues to develop new sitting habits may also aid in adoption and adherence to this behavior change across settings. Developing coping plans and restructuring physical environments were perceived as successful strategies for overcoming social and environmental barriers. Future interventions targeting SED reductions may benefit from incorporating these strategies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is a clear public health need to reduce office workers' sedentary behaviors (SBs), especially in the workplace. Digital technologies are increasingly being deployed in the workplace to measure and modify office workers' SBs. However, knowledge of the range and nature of research on this topic is limited; it also remains unclear to what extent digital interventions have exploited the technological possibilities. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to investigate the technological landscape of digital interventions for SB reduction in office workers and to map the research activity in this field. METHODS:Terms related to SB, office worker, and digital technology were applied in various combinations to search Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, Scopus, Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library, Engineering index Compendex, and Google Scholar for the years 2000 to 2017. Data regarding the study and intervention details were extracted. Interventions and studies were categorized into development, feasibility and/piloting, evaluation, or implementation phase based on the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions. A novel framework was developed to classify technological features and annotate technological configurations. A mix of quantitative and qualitative approaches was used to summarize data. RESULTS:We identified 68 articles describing 45 digital interventions designed to intervene with office workers' SB. A total of 6 common technological features had been applied to interventions with various combinations. Configurations such as "information delivery and mediated organizational and social support" and "digital log and automated tailored feedback" were well established in evaluation and implementation studies; in contrast, the integration of passive data collection, connected devices, and ATF or scheduled prompts was mostly present in development and piloting research. CONCLUSIONS:This review is the first to map and describe the use of digital technologies in research on SB reduction in office workers. Interdisciplinary collaborations can help to maximize the potential of technologies. As novel modes of delivery that capitalize on embedded computing and electronics, wireless technologies have been developed and piloted in engineering, computing, and design fields, efforts can be directed to move them to the next phase of evaluation with more rigorous study designs. Quality of research may be improved by fostering conversations between different research communities and encouraging researchers to plan, conduct, and report their research under the MRC framework. This review will be particularly informative to those deciding on areas where further research or development is needed and to those looking to locate the relevant expertise, resources, and design inputs when designing their own systems or interventions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Interventions to increase physical activity or reduce sedentary behaviour within the workplace setting have shown mixed effects. This cluster randomised controlled trial assessed whether multi-component interventions, focusing on changes at the individual, environmental, and organisational levels, either increased physical activity or reduced sedentary behaviour, compared to a passive control group. METHODS:Teams of office-workers from two companies participated in one of two interventions (iPA: targeting physical activity; or iSED: targeting sedentary behaviour), or wait-list control group (C). Exclusion criterion was very high physical activity level (MVPA ?30?min/day in ?10?min bouts every day). Randomisation occurred at the level of workplace cluster, and groups were randomly allocated (1:1) with stratification for company and cluster size. Personnel involved in data collection and processing were blinded to group allocation. Both interventions included five sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy counselling for 6?months. iPA included counselling focused on physical activity, access to a gym, and encouragement to exercise, and go for lunch walks. iSED included counselling on sedentary behaviour and encouragement to reduce sitting and increase engagement in standing- and walking-meetings. At baseline and the 6-month mark accelerometers were worn on the hip and thigh for 7?days. The primary outcomes were group differences in time spent in moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity (%MVPA) and in sedentary behaviour (%), analysed using Bayesian multilevel modelling for those with complete data. RESULTS:Two-hundred and sixty three office workers (73% women, mean age 42?±?9?years, education 15?±?2?years) were randomised into 23 cluster teams (iPA n?=?84, 8 clusters; iSED n?=?87, 7 clusters; C n?=?92, 7 clusters). No significant group differences (posterior mean ratios: 95% credible interval) were found after the intervention for %MVPA or for %Sedentary. %MVPA: iPA vs C (0·04: -?0·80-0·82); iSED vs C (0·47: -?0·41-1·32); iPA vs iSED (0·43: -?0·42-1·27). %Sedentary: iPA vs C (1·16: -?1·66-4·02); iSED vs C (-?0·44: -?3·50-2·64); iPA vs iSED (-?1·60: -?4·72-1·47). CONCLUSIONS:The multi-component interventions focusing on either physical activity or sedentary behaviour were unsuccessful at increasing device-measured physical activity or reducing sedentary behaviour compared to a control group. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN, ISRCTN92968402 . Registered 27/2/2018, recruitment started 15/03/2018.

Project description:Background:Office workers have been identified as being at risk of accumulating high amounts of sedentary time in prolonged events during work hours, which has been associated with increased risk of a number of long-term health conditions.There is some evidence that providing advice to stand at regular intervals during the working day, and using computer-based prompts, can reduce sedentary behaviour in office workers. However, evidence of effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability for these types of intervention is currently limited. Methods:A 2-arm, parallel group, cluster-randomised feasibility trial to assess the acceptability of prompts to break up sedentary behaviour was conducted with office workers in a commercial bank (n =?21). Participants were assigned to an education only group (EG) or prompt and education group (PG). Both groups received education on reducing and breaking up sitting at work, and the PG also received hourly prompts, delivered by Microsoft Outlook over 10 weeks, reminding them to stand. Objective measurements of sedentary behaviour were made using activPAL monitors worn at three time points: baseline, in the last 2 weeks of the intervention period and 12 weeks after the intervention. Focus groups were conducted to explore the acceptability of the intervention and the motivations and barriers to changing sedentary behaviour. Results:Randomly generated, customised prompts, delivered by Microsoft Outlook, with messages about breaking up sitting, proved to be a feasible and acceptable way of delivering prompts to office workers. Participants in both groups reduced their sitting, but changes were not maintained at follow-up. The education session seemed to increase outcome expectations of the benefits of changing sedentary behaviour and promote self-regulation of behaviour in some participants. However, low self-efficacy and a desire to conform to cultural norms were barriers to changing behaviour. Conclusions:Prompts delivered by Microsoft Outlook were a feasible, low-cost way of prompting office workers to break up their sedentary behaviour, although further research is needed to determine whether this has an additional impact on sedentary behaviour, to education alone. The role of cultural norms, and promoting self-efficacy, should be considered in the design of future interventions. Trial registration:This study was registered retrospectively as a clinical trial on ClinicalTrials.gov (ID no. NCT02609282) on 23 March 2015.

Dataset Information

Common Perceived Barriers and Facilitators for Reducing Sedentary Behaviour among Office Workers.

Publications

Common Perceived Barriers and Facilitators for Reducing Sedentary Behaviour among Office Workers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure