Office workers' perspectives on physical activity and sedentary behaviour: a qualitative study.

Lorraine L Landais, Judith G M Jelsma, Idske R Dotinga, Danielle R M Timmermans, Evert A L M Verhagen, Olga C Damman
Author Information
  1. Lorraine L Landais: Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. l.landais@amsterdamumc.nl.
  2. Judith G M Jelsma: Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  3. Idske R Dotinga: Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  4. Danielle R M Timmermans: Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  5. Evert A L M Verhagen: Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  6. Olga C Damman: Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Office workers spend a significant part of their workday sitting. Interventions that aim to reduce sedentary behaviour and increase physical activity might be more effective if greater attention is paid to individual perspectives that influence behavioural choices, including beliefs and values. This study aimed to gain insight into office workers' perspectives on physical activity and sedentary behaviour.
METHODS: Sixteen Dutch office workers (50% female) from different professions participated in semi-structured face-to-face interviews in March 2019. To facilitate the interviews, participants received a sensitizing booklet one week before the interview. The booklet aimed to trigger them to reflect on their physical activity and sedentary behaviour and on their values in life. All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and coded following codebook thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Six themes were identified: 1) beliefs about health effects are specific regarding physical activity, but superficial regarding sedentary behaviour; 2) in addition to 'health' as a value, other values are also given priority; 3) motivations to engage in physical activity mainly stem from prioritizing the value 'health', reflected by a desire to both achieve positive short/mid-term outcomes and to prevent long-term negative outcomes; 4) attitudes towards physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour are diverse and depend on individual values and previous experiences; 5) perceived barriers depend on internal and external factors; 6) supporting factors are related to support and information in the social and physical environment.
CONCLUSIONS: The great value that office workers attach to health is reflected in their motivations and attitudes regarding physical activity. Increasing office workers' knowledge of the health risks of prolonged sitting may therefore increase their motivation to sit less. Although 'health' is considered important, other values, including social and work-related values, are sometimes prioritized. We conclude that interventions that aim to reduce sedentary behaviour and increase physical activity among office workers could be improved by informing about health effects of sedentary behaviour and short/mid-term benefits of physical activity, including mental health benefits. Moreover, interventions could frame physical activity as congruent with values and support value-congruent choices. Finally, the work environment could support physical activity and interruption of sedentary behaviour.

Keywords

References

  1. Disabil Rehabil. 2020 Jul;42(14):1971-1978 [PMID: 30656981]
  2. Am J Health Promot. 2008 Sep-Oct;23(1):2-12 [PMID: 18785368]
  3. Br J Sports Med. 2020 Dec;54(24):1499-1506 [PMID: 33239356]
  4. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Apr 30;73(16):2062-2072 [PMID: 31023430]
  5. Obes Rev. 2016 May;17(5):467-81 [PMID: 26990220]
  6. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020 Apr 15;17(1):51 [PMID: 32295613]
  7. BMC Public Health. 2017 May 18;17(1):462 [PMID: 28521756]
  8. Occup Med (Lond). 2018 Dec 26;68(9):631-634 [PMID: 30412248]
  9. Prev Med Rep. 2016 Jun 15;4:184-91 [PMID: 27413681]
  10. PLoS One. 2020 May 29;15(5):e0233308 [PMID: 32469889]
  11. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2016 Apr;44(2):71-80 [PMID: 26829248]
  12. Diabetologia. 2012 Nov;55(11):2895-905 [PMID: 22890825]
  13. Lancet. 2012 Jul 21;380(9838):272-81 [PMID: 22818939]
  14. Ann Fam Med. 2014 May-Jun;12(3):270-5 [PMID: 24821899]
  15. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117 [PMID: 24047204]
  16. BMC Res Notes. 2015 Nov 17;8:683 [PMID: 26576730]
  17. Br J Gen Pract. 2005 Apr;55(513):305-12 [PMID: 15826439]
  18. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e45333 [PMID: 23071511]
  19. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010 Dec 10;7:89 [PMID: 21143948]
  20. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019 Apr 2;16(1):30 [PMID: 30940176]
  21. Health Psychol Rev. 2016 Sep;10(3):277-96 [PMID: 26854092]
  22. Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Apr;99(4):491-500 [PMID: 26549169]
  23. J Phys Act Health. 2018 Nov 1;15(11):857-865 [PMID: 30314419]
  24. Am J Health Promot. 2013 Jul-Aug;27(6):e113-23 [PMID: 23631453]
  25. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020 Apr 7;17(1):47 [PMID: 32264899]
  26. PLoS One. 2013 Nov 12;8(11):e78957 [PMID: 24265734]
  27. Health Educ Res. 2006 Dec;21(6):826-35 [PMID: 16857780]
  28. Psychol Health. 2017 Aug;32(8):942-975 [PMID: 28554222]
  29. Am J Community Psychol. 2008 Jun;41(3-4):393-403 [PMID: 18330692]
  30. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020 Nov 26;17(1):151 [PMID: 33239026]
  31. Br J Sports Med. 2015 Nov;49(21):1357-62 [PMID: 26034192]
  32. BMC Public Health. 2020 Jan 28;20(1):112 [PMID: 31992285]
  33. BMC Public Health. 2018 Dec 19;18(1):1388 [PMID: 30567532]
  34. Behav Med. 2010 Oct-Dec;36(4):113-22 [PMID: 21186434]
  35. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Aug 14;16(16): [PMID: 31416112]
  36. Health Psychol. 2009 Nov;28(6):690-701 [PMID: 19916637]
  37. J Behav Med. 2014 Aug;37(4):768-80 [PMID: 23934180]
  38. J Family Med Prim Care. 2015 Jul-Sep;4(3):324-7 [PMID: 26288766]
  39. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Dec 18;17(1): [PMID: 31861424]
  40. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2018 Jun;10(6):807-815 [PMID: 30025784]
  41. Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Nov;89(2):300-8 [PMID: 22878027]
  42. Br J Sports Med. 2020 Mar;54(5):308-309 [PMID: 30413423]
  43. Am J Prev Med. 2004 Jan;26(1):67-80 [PMID: 14700715]

MeSH Term

Exercise
Female
Humans
Male
Motivation
Qualitative Research
Sedentary Behavior
Sitting Position

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0physicalactivitysedentarybehaviourvaluesworkersofficehealthOfficeincreaseperspectivesincludingworkers'interviewsregarding'health'valuesupportsittingaimreduceindividualchoicesbeliefsstudyaimedbookleteffectsmotivationsreflectedshort/mid-termoutcomesattitudesdependfactorssocialenvironmentinterventionsbenefitsBACKGROUND:spendsignificantpartworkdayInterventionsmighteffectivegreaterattentionpaidinfluencebehaviouralgaininsightMETHODS:SixteenDutch50%femaledifferentprofessionsparticipatedsemi-structuredface-to-faceMarch2019facilitateparticipantsreceivedsensitizingoneweekinterviewtriggerreflectlifeaudiotapedtranscribedverbatimcodedfollowingcodebookthematicanalysisRESULTS:Sixthemesidentified:1specificsuperficial2additionalsogivenpriority3engagemainlystemprioritizingdesireachievepositivepreventlong-termnegative4towardsinactivitydiversepreviousexperiences5perceivedbarriersinternalexternal6supportingrelatedinformationCONCLUSIONS:greatattachIncreasingknowledgerisksprolongedmaythereforemotivationsitlessAlthoughconsideredimportantwork-relatedsometimesprioritizedconcludeamongimprovedinformingmentalMoreoverframecongruentvalue-congruentFinallyworkinterruptionbehaviour:qualitativeBeliefsPerspectivePhysicalQualitativeresearchSedentaryValues

Similar Articles

Cited By