"Are we working (too) comfortably?”:Understanding the nature of and factors associated with sedentary behaviour when working in the home environment

Home working has increased due to COVID-19, but little is known about how this change has impacted the health risk behaviour of elevated sedentary time. The aim of this cross-sectional exploratory study was to assess occupational sitting behaviour when working at home, and use the Capability Opportunity Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model to identify influences on this behaviour. University staff (n = 267; 69% female; 92% white) who were predominantly working from home completed a questionnaire to assess sitting time, sitting breaks, demographic and occupational characteristics, and a 7-item COM-B questionnaire and open-ended questions to assess influences on time spent sitting whilst working from home. Data were analysed descriptively, a repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine differences in the COM-B items, and binary logistic regression was used to examine predictors of sitting time. Staff spent on average 89.5% (SD = 17.1) of their time sitting whilst working at home, and took an average of 1.36 (1.38) sitting breaks per hour. There were significant and meaningful differences in the influence of the COM factors on ability and willingness to reduce sitting behaviour (p < .0001; η(p)(2) = .38), and the open-ended responses added further context. The included variables accounted for 20.7% of variance in sitting behaviour, with age, sitting breaks, motivation-automatic, and opportunity-physical contributing significantly. Working from home leads to elevated levels of sitting, and the COM-B provides a useful model to identify key influences on ability and willingness to reduce sitting. Strategies incorporating regular breaks, habit formation/reversal, and restructuring the physical environment may be beneficial

A methodological systematic review of meta-ethnography conduct to articulate the complex analytical phases

Background: Decision making in health and social care requires robust syntheses of both quantitative and qualitative evidence. Meta-ethnography is a seven-phase methodology for synthesising qualitative studies. Developed in 1988 by sociologists in education Noblit and Hare, meta-ethnography has evolved since its inception; it is now widely used in healthcare research and is gaining popularity in education research. The aim of this article is to provide up-to-date, in-depth guidance on conducting the complex analytic synthesis phases 4 to 6 of meta-ethnography through analysis of the latest methodological evidence. Methods: We report findings from a methodological systematic review conducted from 2015 to 2016. Fourteen databases and five other online resources were searched. Expansive searches were also conducted resulting in inclusion of 57 publications on meta-ethnography conduct and reporting from a range of academic disciplines published from 1988 to 2016. Results: Current guidance on applying meta-ethnography originates from a small group of researchers using the methodology in a health context. We identified that researchers have operationalised the analysis and synthesis methods of meta-ethnography – determining how studies are related (phase 4), translating studies into one another (phase 5), synthesising translations (phase 6) and line of argument synthesis - to suit their own syntheses resulting in variation in methods and their application. Empirical research is required to compare the impact of different methods of translation and synthesis. Some methods are potentially better at preserving links with the context and meaning of primary studies, a key principle of meta-ethnography. A meta-ethnography can and should include reciprocal and refutational translation and line of argument synthesis, rather than only one of these, to maximise the impact of its outputs. Conclusion: The current work is the first to articulate and differentiate the methodological variations and their application for different purposes and represents a significant advance in the understanding of the methodological application of meta-ethnography