OBJECTIVE: Using a randomised control trial design, this study assessed the impact of two walking interventions, on the work day step counts and health of UK academic and administrative, university employees. METHOD: A convenience sample of 58 women (age 42+/-10 years) and 6 men (age 40+/-11 years) completed baseline and intervention measures for step counts, % body fat, waist circumference and systolic/diastolic blood pressure, during a ten-week period (October to December, 2005). Before intervention, baseline step counts (five working days) were used to randomly allocate participants to a control (maintain normal behaviour, n=22) and two treatment groups ("walking routes", n=21; "walking in tasks", n=21). Intervention effects were evaluated by calculating differences between pre-intervention and intervention data. A one-way ANOVA analysed significant differences between groups. RESULTS: A significant intervention effect (p<0.002) was found for step counts, with mean differences indicating a decrease in steps for the control group (-767 steps/day) and increases in the "walking routes" (+926 steps/day) and "walking in tasks" (+997 steps/day) groups. Small, non-significant changes were found in % body fat, waist circumference and blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Findings have implications for work-based physical activity promotion and the development of walking interventions within the completion of work-based tasks.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Using a randomised control trial design, this study assessed the impact of two walking interventions, on the work day step counts and health of UK academic and administrative, university employees. METHOD: A convenience sample of 58 women (age 42+/-10 years) and 6 men (age 40+/-11 years) completed baseline and intervention measures for step counts, % body fat, waist circumference and systolic/diastolic blood pressure, during a ten-week period (October to December, 2005). Before intervention, baseline step counts (five working days) were used to randomly allocate participants to a control (maintain normal behaviour, n=22) and two treatment groups ("walking routes", n=21; "walking in tasks", n=21). Intervention effects were evaluated by calculating differences between pre-intervention and intervention data. A one-way ANOVA analysed significant differences between groups. RESULTS: A significant intervention effect (p<0.002) was found for step counts, with mean differences indicating a decrease in steps for the control group (-767 steps/day) and increases in the "walking routes" (+926 steps/day) and "walking in tasks" (+997 steps/day) groups. Small, non-significant changes were found in % body fat, waist circumference and blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Findings have implications for work-based physical activity promotion and the development of walking interventions within the completion of work-based tasks.
Authors: Dariush Mozaffarian; Ashkan Afshin; Neal L Benowitz; Vera Bittner; Stephen R Daniels; Harold A Franch; David R Jacobs; William E Kraus; Penny M Kris-Etherton; Debra A Krummel; Barry M Popkin; Laurie P Whitsel; Neil A Zakai Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-08-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ling-Ling Lee; Caroline A Mulvaney; Yoko Kin Yoke Wong; Edwin Sy Chan; Michael C Watson; Hui-Hsin Lin Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-02-24
Authors: Barbara E Ainsworth; Cheryl Der Ananian; Ali Soroush; Jenelle Walker; Pamela Swan; Eric Poortvliet; Agneta Yngve Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Claire F Fitzsimons; Graham Baker; Stuart R Gray; Myra A Nimmo; Nanette Mutrie Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-03-19 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Suliman Mansi; Stephan Milosavljevic; Steve Tumilty; Paul Hendrick; Chris Higgs; David G Baxter Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Nicholas D Gilson; Anna Puig-Ribera; Jim McKenna; Wendy J Brown; Nicola W Burton; Carlton B Cooke Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2009-07-20 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Jeremy A Steeves; David R Bassett; Eugene C Fitzhugh; Hollie A Raynor; Dixie L Thompson Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2012-08-06 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Emma L Bird; Graham Baker; Nanette Mutrie; David Ogilvie; Shannon Sahlqvist; Jane Powell Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2013-03-11 Impact factor: 4.267