L Engelen1, H M Dhillon2, J Y Chau3, D Hespe3, A E Bauman3. 1. Prevention Research Collaboration, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia, lina.engelen@sydney.edu.au. 2. Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. 3. Prevention Research Collaboration, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupying new, active design office buildings designed for health promotion and connectivity provides an opportunity to evaluate indoor environment effects on healthy behaviour, sedentariness and workplace perceptions. AIMS: To determine if moving to a health-promoting building changed workplace physical activity, sedentary behaviour, workplace perceptions and productivity. METHODS: Participants from four locations at the University of Sydney, Australia, relocated into a new active design building. After consent, participants completed an online questionnaire 2 months before moving and 2 months after. Questions related to health behaviours (physical activity and sitting time), musculoskeletal issues, perceptions of the office environment, productivity and engagement. RESULTS: There were 34 participants (60% aged 25-45, 78% female, 84% employed full-time); 21 participants provided complete data. Results showed that after the move participants spent less work time sitting (83-70%; P < 0.01) and more time standing (9-21%; P < 0.01), while walking time remained unchanged. Participants reported less low back pain (P < 0.01). Sixty per cent of participants in the new workplace were in an open-plan office, compared to 16% before moving. Participants perceived the new work environment as more stimulating, better lit and ventilated, but noisier and providing less storage. No difference was reported in daily physical activity, number of stairs climbed or productivity. CONCLUSIONS: Moving to an active design building appeared to have physical health-promoting effects on workers, but workers' perceptions about the new work environment varied. These results will inform future studies in other new buildings.
BACKGROUND: Occupying new, active design office buildings designed for health promotion and connectivity provides an opportunity to evaluate indoor environment effects on healthy behaviour, sedentariness and workplace perceptions. AIMS: To determine if moving to a health-promoting building changed workplace physical activity, sedentary behaviour, workplace perceptions and productivity. METHODS:Participants from four locations at the University of Sydney, Australia, relocated into a new active design building. After consent, participants completed an online questionnaire 2 months before moving and 2 months after. Questions related to health behaviours (physical activity and sitting time), musculoskeletal issues, perceptions of the office environment, productivity and engagement. RESULTS: There were 34 participants (60% aged 25-45, 78% female, 84% employed full-time); 21 participants provided complete data. Results showed that after the move participants spent less work time sitting (83-70%; P < 0.01) and more time standing (9-21%; P < 0.01), while walking time remained unchanged. Participants reported less low back pain (P < 0.01). Sixty per cent of participants in the new workplace were in an open-plan office, compared to 16% before moving. Participants perceived the new work environment as more stimulating, better lit and ventilated, but noisier and providing less storage. No difference was reported in daily physical activity, number of stairs climbed or productivity. CONCLUSIONS: Moving to an active design building appeared to have physical health-promoting effects on workers, but workers' perceptions about the new work environment varied. These results will inform future studies in other new buildings.
Authors: Josephine Y Chau; Hidde P Van Der Ploeg; Scott Dunn; John Kurko; Adrian E Bauman Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Pedro C Hallal; Lars Bo Andersen; Fiona C Bull; Regina Guthold; William Haskell; Ulf Ekelund Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Josephine Y Chau; Anne C Grunseit; Tien Chey; Emmanuel Stamatakis; Wendy J Brown; Charles E Matthews; Adrian E Bauman; Hidde P van der Ploeg Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Francis Q S Dzakpasu; Alison Carver; Christian J Brakenridge; Flavia Cicuttini; Donna M Urquhart; Neville Owen; David W Dunstan Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2021-12-13 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Birgit Wallmann-Sperlich; Sophie Hoffmann; Anne Salditt; Tanja Bipp; Ingo Froboese Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-05-04 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: José Antonio Lozano-Lozano; Salvador Chacón-Moscoso; Susana Sanduvete-Chaves; Francisco Pablo Holgado-Tello Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 3.390