A Sawyer1, L Smith2, M Ucci3, R Jones4, A Marmot5, A Fisher1. 1. Health Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK. 2. The Cambridge Centre for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Department of Life Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK. 3. UCL Institute for Environmental Design and Engineering, The Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment, Central House, University College London, 14 Upper Woburn Place, London WC1H 0NN, UK. 4. Glasgow Centre for Population Health, Third Floor, Olympia Building, Bridgeton Cross, Glasgow G40 2QH, UK. 5. UCL Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment, 132 Hampstead Road, University College London, London NW1 2PS, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals in office-based occupations have low levels of physical activity but there is little research into the socio-ecological correlates of workplace activity. AIMS: To identify factors contributing to office-based workers' perceptions of the office environment and explore cross-sectional relationships between these factors and occupational physical activity. METHODS: Participants in the Active Buildings study reported perceptions of their office environment using the Movement at Work Survey. A principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted on survey items. A sub-sample wore the ActivPAL3TM accelerometer for ≥3 workdays to measure occupational step count, standing, sitting and sit-to-stand transitions. Linear regression analyses assessed relationships between environmental perceptions and activity. RESULTS: There were 433 participants, with accelerometer data available for 115 participants across 11 organ izations. The PCA revealed four factors: (i) perceived distance to office destinations, (ii) perceived office aesthetics and comfort, (iii) perceived office social environment and (iv) perceived management discouragement of unscheduled breaks. Younger participants perceived office destinations as being closer to their desk. Younger and female participants perceived more positive office social environments; there were no other socio-demographic differences. Within the sub-sample with accelerometer data, perceived discouragement of breaks by management was related to occupational step count/hour (B = -64.5; 95% CI -109.7 to -19.2). No other environmental perceptions were related to activity or sitting. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived managerial discouragement of breaks could be related to meaningful decreases in occupational step count. Future research should aim to elucidate the role of the workplace socio-cultural environment in occupational walking, with a focus on the role of management.
BACKGROUND: Individuals in office-based occupations have low levels of physical activity but there is little research into the socio-ecological correlates of workplace activity. AIMS: To identify factors contributing to office-based workers' perceptions of the office environment and explore cross-sectional relationships between these factors and occupational physical activity. METHODS: Participants in the Active Buildings study reported perceptions of their office environment using the Movement at Work Survey. A principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted on survey items. A sub-sample wore the ActivPAL3TM accelerometer for ≥3 workdays to measure occupational step count, standing, sitting and sit-to-stand transitions. Linear regression analyses assessed relationships between environmental perceptions and activity. RESULTS: There were 433 participants, with accelerometer data available for 115 participants across 11 organ izations. The PCA revealed four factors: (i) perceived distance to office destinations, (ii) perceived office aesthetics and comfort, (iii) perceived office social environment and (iv) perceived management discouragement of unscheduled breaks. Younger participants perceived office destinations as being closer to their desk. Younger and female participants perceived more positive office social environments; there were no other socio-demographic differences. Within the sub-sample with accelerometer data, perceived discouragement of breaks by management was related to occupational step count/hour (B = -64.5; 95% CI -109.7 to -19.2). No other environmental perceptions were related to activity or sitting. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived managerial discouragement of breaks could be related to meaningful decreases in occupational step count. Future research should aim to elucidate the role of the workplace socio-cultural environment in occupational walking, with a focus on the role of management.
Authors: A Väänänen; A Kouvonen; M Kivimäki; T Oksanen; M Elovainio; M Virtanen; J Pentti; J Vahtera Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2009-02-02 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: John P Buckley; Alan Hedge; Thomas Yates; Robert J Copeland; Michael Loosemore; Mark Hamer; Gavin Bradley; David W Dunstan Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Abi Fisher; Marcella Ucci; Lee Smith; Alexia Sawyer; Richard Spinney; Marina Konstantatou; Alexi Marmot Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Stephanie A Prince; Cara G Elliott; Kyle Scott; Sarah Visintini; Jennifer L Reed Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Matthew L Stevens; Nidhi Gupta; Elif Inan Eroglu; Patrick Joseph Crowley; Barbaros Eroglu; Adrian Bauman; Malcolm Granat; Leon Straker; Peter Palm; Sari Stenholm; Mette Aadahl; Paul Mork; Sebastien Chastin; Vegar Rangul; Mark Hamer; Annemarie Koster; Andreas Holtermann; Emmanuel Stamatakis Journal: BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med Date: 2020-12-24
Authors: Raúl E Sánchez Urbano; Ariel Paredes; Frank R Vargas Chambi; Pedro Guedes Ruela; David E V Olivares; Benicio T Souza Pereira; Sandaly O S Pacheco; Fabio J Pacheco Journal: Front Nutr Date: 2021-01-27
Authors: Viktoria Wahlström; David Olsson; Fredrik Öhberg; Tommy Olsson; Lisbeth Slunga Järvholm Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Lee Smith; Alexia Sawyer; Benjamin Gardner; Katri Seppala; Marcella Ucci; Alexi Marmot; Pippa Lally; Abi Fisher Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-06-09 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Matthew L Stevens; Kristina Karstad; Svend Erik Mathiassen; Leticia Bergamin Januario; Andreas Holtermann; David M Hallman Journal: Ann Work Expo Health Date: 2021-10-09 Impact factor: 2.179