Monitoring sedentary patterns in office employees: validity of an m-health tool (Walk@Work-App) for occupational health.

OBJECTIVE: This study validated the Walk@Work-Application (W@W-App) for measuring occupational sitting and stepping. METHODS: The W@W-App was installed on the smartphones of office-based employees (n=17; 10 women; 26±3 years). A prescribed 1-hour laboratory protocol plus two continuous hours of occupational free-living activities were performed. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) compared mean differences of sitting time and step count measurements between the W@W-App and criterion measures (ActivPAL3TM and SW200Yamax Digi-Walker). RESULTS: During the protocol, agreement between self-paced walking (ICC=0.85) and active working tasks step counts (ICC=0.80) was good. The smallest median difference was for sitting time (1.5seconds). During free-living conditions, sitting time (ICC=0.99) and stepping (ICC=0.92) showed excellent agreement, with a difference of 0.5minutes and 18 steps respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The W@W-App provided valid measures for monitoring occupational sedentary patterns in real life conditions; a key issue for increasing awareness and changing occupational sedentariness

Patterns of impact resulting from a 'sit less, move more' web-based program in sedentary office employees.

PURPOSE: Encouraging office workers to 'sit less and move more' encompasses two public health priorities. However, there is little evidence on the effectiveness of workplace interventions for reducing sitting, even less about the longer term effects of such interventions and still less on dual-focused interventions. This study assessed the short and mid-term impacts of a workplace web-based intervention (Walk@WorkSpain, W@WS; 2010-11) on self-reported sitting time, step counts and physical risk factors (waist circumference, BMI, blood pressure) for chronic disease. METHODS: Employees at six Spanish university campuses (n=264; 42±10 years; 171 female) were randomly assigned by worksite and campus to an Intervention (used W@WS; n=129; 87 female) or a Comparison group (maintained normal behavior; n=135; 84 female). This phased, 19-week program aimed to decrease occupational sitting time through increased incidental movement and short walks. A linear mixed model assessed changes in outcome measures between the baseline, ramping (8 weeks), maintenance (11 weeks) and follow-up (two months) phases for Intervention versus Comparison groups. RESULTS: A significant 2 (group) × 2 (program phases) interaction was found for self-reported occupational sitting (F[3]=7.97, p=0.046), daily step counts (F[3]=15.68, p=0.0013) and waist circumference (F[3]=11.67, p=0.0086). The Intervention group decreased minutes of daily occupational sitting while also increasing step counts from baseline (446±126; 8,862±2,475) through ramping (+425±120; 9,345±2,435), maintenance (+422±123; 9,638±3,131) and follow-up (+414±129; 9,786±3,205). In the Comparison group, compared to baseline (404±106), sitting time remained unchanged through ramping and maintenance, but decreased at follow-up (-388±120), while step counts diminished across all phases. The Intervention group significantly reduced waist circumference by 2.1cms from baseline to follow-up while the Comparison group reduced waist circumference by 1.3cms over the same period. CONCLUSIONS: W@WS is a feasible and effective evidence-based intervention that can be successfully deployed with sedentary employees to elicit sustained changes on "sitting less and moving more"

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

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

Impact of a workplace 'sit less, move more' program on efficiency-related outcomes of office employees.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the impact of 'sit less, move more' interventions on workplace performance. This study assessed the short and mid-term impacts of and patterns of change within, a 19-week workplace web-based intervention (Walk@WorkSpain; W@WS; 2010-11) on employees´ presenteeism, mental well-being and lost work performance. METHODS: A site randomised control trial recruited employees at six Spanish university campuses (n = 264; 42 ± 10 years; 171 female), assigned by worksite and campus to an Intervention (IG; used W@WS; n = 129; 87 female) or an active Comparison group (A-CG; pedometer, paper diary and self-reported sitting time; n = 135; 84 female). A linear mixed model assessed changes between the baseline, ramping (8 weeks), maintenance (11 weeks) and follow-up (two months) phases for the IG versus A-CG on (i) % of lost work productivity (Work Limitations Questionnaire; WLQ); (ii) three scales for presenteeism (WLQ) assessing difficulty meeting scheduling demands (Time), performing cognitive and inter-personal tasks (Mental-Interpersonal) and decrements in meeting the quantity, quality and timeliness of completed work (Output); and (iii) mental well-being (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale). T-tests assessed differences between groups for changes on the main outcomes. In the IG, a multivariate logistic regression model identified patterns of response according to baseline socio-demographic variables, physical activity and sitting time. RESULTS: There was a significant 2 (group) × 2 (program time points) interaction for the Time (F [3]=8.69, p = 0.005), Mental-Interpersonal (F [3]=10.01, p = 0.0185), Output scales for presenteeism (F [3]=8.56, p = 0.0357), and for % of lost work performance (F [3]=10.31, p = 0.0161). Presenteeism and lost performance rose significantly in both groups across all study time points; after baseline performance was consistently better in the IG than in the A-CG. Better performance was linked to employees being more active (Time, p = 0.041) and younger (Mental-interpersonal, p = 0.057; Output, p = 0.017). Higher total sitting time during nonworking days (Mental-interpersonal, p = 0.019) and lower sitting time during workdays (WLQ Index, p = 0.013) also improved performance. CONCLUSION: Versus an active comparison condition, a 'sit less, move more` workplace intervention effectively reduced an array of markers of lost workday productivity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02960750 ; Date of registration: 07/11/2016

Change in average waist circumference for the intervention and comparison groups across program phases.

<p>Change in average waist circumference for the intervention and comparison groups across program phases.</p

Change in average occupational sitting time for the intervention and comparison groups across program phases.

<p>Change in average occupational sitting time for the intervention and comparison groups across program phases.</p

Change in average steps/day for the intervention and comparison groups across program phases.

<p>Change in average steps/day for the intervention and comparison groups across program phases.</p

Mean differences relative to baseline across program phases within the Intervention (used W@WS) and Comparison group (maintained habitual behavior) on daily step counts, occupational sitting and waist circumference.

<p>^aAfter the ramping phase (week 8),</p><p>^bAfter the maintenance phase (week 19),</p><p>^cAt two months follow-up (week 21),</p><p>* <i>p</i><0.05,</p><p>** <i>p</i><0.01,</p><p>*** <i>p</i><0.001.</p><p>Mean differences relative to baseline across program phases within the Intervention (used W@WS) and Comparison group (maintained habitual behavior) on daily step counts, occupational sitting and waist circumference.</p

Flowchart of participant´s recruitment across all phases of the intervention.

<p>Flowchart of participant´s recruitment across all phases of the intervention.</p