Suchergebnisse

Purpose. To determine whether workload, job satisfaction, and flexible schedules are predictive of using time at work to exercise. Design. The study design was the quantitative analysis of the time at work to exercise intervention of a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Setting. The study took place at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. Subjects. Subjects comprised 188 full- and part-time faculty and staff (57% female). Intervention. Employees were randomized into different intervention groups, and analysis focused on employees who were provided 30 minutes of time at work to exercise. Measures. Time at work to exercise at was measured 9 months, and work environment characteristics were measured at baseline. Analysis. Logistic regression modeling using generalized estimating equation analysis was used to account for departmental clustering. Results. Time at work to exercise was used by 45% of participants. Participants who felt comfortable taking time off work to exercise were 2.8 times more likely to use time to exercise than those who did not feel comfortable taking time off (95% confidence interval: 1.3 to 6.1). Participants who reported too much work were .3 times less likely to exercise (95% confidence interval: 0.2 to 0.7). Job satisfaction and the ability to take time off for personal matters were not significantly associated with using time to exercise. Conclusion. The results support the hypothesis that individuals with a supportive work environment would be more likely to use time at work to exercise. Workload and having time during the day are more important than job satisfaction.

Purpose. To evaluate the effectiveness of addressing multiple barriers to physical activity (PA) using interventions at the workplace. Design. The Physical Activity and Lifestyle Study used a randomized controlled trial in which 60 university departments were randomized into five groups. Setting. Large Southeastern university. Subjects. Physically inactive nonfaculty employees in the participating departments (n = 410) were interviewed five times over 9 months, with 82% completing all surveys. Intervention. Departments were randomly assigned to (1) control, (2) gym membership, (3) gym + PA education, (4) gym + time during the workday, and (5) gym + education + time. Measures. PA intensity and quantity were measured using the 7-day Physical Activity Recall instrument, with PA then classified as the number of days meeting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines. Analysis. The outcome was modeled with generalized linear mixed model methodology. Results. There was no significant improvement when a group received gym alone compared to the control (Rate Ratio [RR]) 1.22 [.90, 1.67]). However, gym + education, gym + time, and gym + education + time were significantly better than the control (RR 1.51 [1.15, 1.98], RR 1.46 [1.13, 1.88], RR 1.28 [1.01, 1.62]), with improvements sustained over the 9 months. Conclusion. Among sedentary adults who had access to indoor exercise facilities, addressing environmental and cognitive barriers simultaneously (i.e., time and education) did not encourage more activity than addressing either barrier alone.

<i>Objective:</i> To document the role of physicians' family history of cancer in terms of personal use of cancer preventive services and in recommending that patients receive such services. <i>Methods:</i> We examined the Women Physicians' Health Study, a questionnaire-based study of a representative sample of 4,501 female physicians in the United States. <i>Results:</i> Among the physicians surveyed, 38.9% (95% confidence interval 37.1–40.7) reported a family history of cancer. A physician's self-reported family history of a specific cancer was positively associated with the physician having had a more recent screening exam for that cancer. Family history of any cancer was positively associated with older age, white race, recent sigmoidoscopy, recent mammogram, digital rectal exam, a blood stool test, history of cigarette smoking and history of recent alcohol use. Physicians' family histories did not significantly influence the reported frequency of recommendations of screening services for their patients. <i>Conclusions:</i> The observed association between a positive physician family history and personal cancer prevention practices suggests that physicians are receptive to the concept of a positive family history of cancer as a risk factor for cancer. This could present an educational opportunity for physicians to emphasize the importance of cancer family history in patients, particularly with respect to underutilized services such as screening for colorectal cancer.