Suchergebnisse

Purpose. Examine associations between worksite physical activity promotion strategies and employees' physical activity and sedentary behaviors. Design. Cross-sectional. Setting. Seattle–King County, Washington and Baltimore, Maryland–Washington, D.C. regions. Subjects. Adults working outside the home (n = 1313). Mean age was 45 ± 10 years, 75.8% of participants were non-Hispanic white, 56% were male, and 51% had income ≥$70,000/year. Measures. Participants reported demographic characteristics and presence/absence of nine physical activity promotion environment and policy strategies in their work environment (e.g., showers, lockers, physical activity programs). A worksite physical activity promotion index was a tally of strategies. Total sedentary and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) min/d were objectively assessed via 7-day accelerometry. Total job-related physical activity minutes and recreational physical activity minutes were self-reported with the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Analysis. Mixed-effects models and generalized estimating equations evaluated the association of the worksite promotion index with physical activity and sedentary behavior, adjusting for demographics. Results. A higher worksite promotion index was significantly associated with higher total sedentary behavior (β = 3.97), MVPA (β = 1.04), recreational physical activity (β = 1.1 and odds ratio = 1.39; away from work and at work, respectively) and negatively with job-related physical activity (β = .90). Conclusions. Multiple worksite physical activity promotion strategies based on environmental supports and policies may increase recreational physical activity and should be evaluated in controlled trials. These findings are particularly important given the increasingly sedentary nature of employment. (Am J Health Promot 2011;25[4]:264–271.)

Purpose: To review enrollment strategies, participation barriers, and program reach of a large, 2-year workplace intervention targeting sedentary behavior. Approach: Cross-sectional, retrospective review. Setting: Twenty-four worksites balanced across academic, industry, and government sectors in Minneapolis/Saint Paul (Minnesota) and Phoenix (Arizona) regions. Participants: Full-time (≥30+ h/wk), sedentary office workers. Methods: Reach was calculated as the proportion of eligible employees who enrolled in the intervention ([N enrolled/(proportion of eligible employees × N total employees)] × 100). Mean (1 standard deviation) and median worksite sizes were calculated at each enrollment step. Participation barriers and modifications were recorded by the research team. A survey was sent to a subset of nonparticipants (N = 57), and thematic analyses were conducted to examine reasons for nonparticipation, positive impacts, and negative experiences. Results: Employer reach was 65% (56 worksites invited to participate; 66% eligible of 56 responses; 24 enrolled). Employee reach was 58% (1317 invited to participate, 83% eligible of 906 responses; 632 enrolled). Postrandomization, on average, 59% (15%) of the worksites participated. Eighteen modifications were developed to overcome participant-, context-, and research-related participation barriers. Conclusion: A high proportion of worksites and employees approached to participate in a sedentary behavior reduction intervention engaged in the study. Interventions that provide flexible enrollment, graded participant engagement options, and adopt a participant-centered approach may facilitate workplace intervention success.

PURPOSE: To review enrollment strategies, participation barriers, and program reach of a large, 2-year workplace intervention targeting sedentary behavior. APPROACH: Cross-sectional, retrospective review. SETTING: Twenty-four worksites balanced across academic, industry, and government sectors in Minneapolis/Saint Paul (Minnesota) and Phoenix (Arizona) regions. PARTICIPANTS: Full-time (≥30+ h/wk), sedentary office workers. METHODS: Reach was calculated as the proportion of eligible employees who enrolled in the intervention ([N enrolled/(proportion of eligible employees × N total employees)] × 100). Mean (1 standard deviation) and median worksite sizes were calculated at each enrollment step. Participation barriers and modifications were recorded by the research team. A survey was sent to a subset of nonparticipants (N = 57), and thematic analyses were conducted to examine reasons for nonparticipation, positive impacts, and negative experiences. RESULTS: Employer reach was 65% (56 worksites invited to participate; 66% eligible of 56 responses; 24 enrolled). Employee reach was 58% (1317 invited to participate, 83% eligible of 906 responses; 632 enrolled). Postrandomization, on average, 59% (15%) of the worksites participated. Eighteen modifications were developed to overcome participant-, context-, and research-related participation barriers. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of worksites and employees approached to participate in a sedentary behavior reduction intervention engaged in the study. Interventions that provide flexible enrollment, graded participant engagement options, and adopt a participant-centered approach may facilitate workplace intervention success.

BACKGROUND: Sedentary time is associated with chronic disease and premature mortality. We tested a multilevel workplace intervention with and without sit-stand workstations to reduce sedentary time and lower cardiometabolic risk. METHODS: Stand and Move at Work was a group (cluster) randomized trial conducted between January 2016 and December 2017 among full-time employees; ≥18 years; and in academic, industry/healthcare, and government worksites in Phoenix, Arizona and Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. Eligible worksites were randomized to (a) MOVE+, a multilevel intervention targeting reduction in sedentary time and increases in light physical activity (LPA); or (b) STAND+, the MOVE+ intervention along with sit-stand workstations to allow employees to sit or stand while working. The primary endpoints were objectively-measured workplace sitting and LPA at 12 months. The secondary endpoint was a clustered cardiometabolic risk score (blood pressure, glucose, insulin, triglycerides, and HDL-cholesterol) at 12 months. RESULTS: Worksites (N = 24; academic [n = 8], industry/healthcare [n = 8], and government [n = 8] sectors) and employees (N = 630; 27 ± 8 per worksite; 45 ± 11 years of age, 74% female) were enrolled. All worksites were retained and 487 participants completed the intervention and provided data for the primary endpoint. The adjusted between arm difference in sitting at 12 months was − 59.2 (CI: − 74.6,-43.8) min per 8 h workday, favoring STAND+, and in LPA at 12 months was + 2.2 (− 0.9,5.4) min per 8 h workday. Change in the clustered metabolic risk score was small and not statistically significant, but favored STAND+. In an exploratory subgroup of 95 participants with prediabetes or diabetes, the effect sizes were larger and clinically meaningful, all favoring STAND+, including blood glucose, triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, LDL-cholesterol, body weight, and body fat. CONCLUSIONS: Multilevel workplace interventions that include the use of sit-stand workstations are ...