OBJECTIVE: Social support may be associated with improved diet and physical activity-determinants of overweight and obesity. Wellness programs increasingly target worksites. The aim was to evaluate the relationship between worksite social support and dietary behaviors, physical activity, and body mass index (BMI). METHOD: Baseline data were obtained on 2878 employees from 2005 to 2007 from 34 worksites through Promoting Activity and Changes in Eating, a group-randomized weight reduction intervention in Greater Seattle. Worksite social support, diet, physical activity, and BMI were assessed via self-reported questionnaire. Principal component analysis was applied to workgroup questions. To adjust for design effects, random effects models were employed. RESULTS: No associations were found with worksite social support and BMI, or with many obesogenic behaviors. However, individuals with higher worksite social support had 14.3% higher (95% CI: 5.6%-23.7%) mean physical activity score and 4% higher (95% CI: 1%-7%) mean fruit and vegetable intake compared to individuals with one-unit lower support. CONCLUSION: Our findings do not support a conclusive relationship between higher worksite social support and obesogenic behaviors, with the exception of physical activity and fruit and vegetable intake. Future studies are needed to confirm these relationships and evaluate how worksite social support impacts trial outcomes.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Social support may be associated with improved diet and physical activity-determinants of overweight and obesity. Wellness programs increasingly target worksites. The aim was to evaluate the relationship between worksite social support and dietary behaviors, physical activity, and body mass index (BMI). METHOD: Baseline data were obtained on 2878 employees from 2005 to 2007 from 34 worksites through Promoting Activity and Changes in Eating, a group-randomized weight reduction intervention in Greater Seattle. Worksite social support, diet, physical activity, and BMI were assessed via self-reported questionnaire. Principal component analysis was applied to workgroup questions. To adjust for design effects, random effects models were employed. RESULTS: No associations were found with worksite social support and BMI, or with many obesogenic behaviors. However, individuals with higher worksite social support had 14.3% higher (95% CI: 5.6%-23.7%) mean physical activity score and 4% higher (95% CI: 1%-7%) mean fruit and vegetable intake compared to individuals with one-unit lower support. CONCLUSION: Our findings do not support a conclusive relationship between higher worksite social support and obesogenic behaviors, with the exception of physical activity and fruit and vegetable intake. Future studies are needed to confirm these relationships and evaluate how worksite social support impacts trial outcomes.
Authors: Diane L Elliot; Linn Goldberg; Terry E Duncan; Kerry S Kuehl; Esther L Moe; Rosemary K R Breger; Carol L DeFrancesco; Denise B Ernst; Victor J Stevens Journal: Am J Health Behav Date: 2004 Jan-Feb
Authors: Allen Cheadle; Sarah E Samuels; Suzanne Rauzon; Sallie C Yoshida; Pamela M Schwartz; Maria Boyle; William L Beery; Lisa Craypo; Loel Solomon Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Aurélie Untas; Jyothi Thumma; Nicole Rascle; Hugh Rayner; Donna Mapes; Antonio A Lopes; Shunichi Fukuhara; Tadao Akizawa; Hal Morgenstern; Bruce M Robinson; Ronald L Pisoni; Christian Combe Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2010-10-21 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: M Liebman; S Pelican; S A Moore; B Holmes; M K Wardlaw; L M Melcher; A C Liddil; L C Paul; T Dunnagan; G W Haynes Journal: Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord Date: 2003-06
Authors: M Bonaccio; A Di Castelnuovo; S Costanzo; G Pounis; M Persichillo; C Cerletti; M B Donati; G de Gaetano; L Iacoviello Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2017-09-27 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: K Patrick; S J Marshall; E P Davila; J K Kolodziejczyk; J H Fowler; K J Calfas; J S Huang; C L Rock; W G Griswold; A Gupta; G Merchant; G J Norman; F Raab; M C Donohue; B J Fogg; T N Robinson Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2013-11-09 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Sara L Tamers; Cassandra Okechukwu; Jennifer Allen; May Yang; Anne Stoddard; Reginald Tucker-Seeley; Glorian Sorensen Journal: Prev Med Date: 2012-11-28 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Ruth F Hunter; Helen McAneney; Michael Davis; Mark A Tully; Thomas W Valente; Frank Kee Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Wendy E Barrington; Rachel M Ceballos; Sonia K Bishop; Bonnie A McGregor; Shirley A A Beresford Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2012 Impact factor: 2.830