This meta-analytic review critically examines the effectiveness of workplace interventions targeting physical activity, dietary behaviour or both on weight outcomes. Data could be extracted from 22 studies published between 1980 and November 2009 for meta-analyses. The GRADE approach was used to determine the level of evidence for each pooled outcome measure. Results show moderate quality of evidence that workplace physical activity and dietary behaviour interventions significantly reduce body weight (nine studies; mean difference [MD]-1.19 kg [95% CI -1.64 to -0.74]), body mass index (BMI) (11 studies; MD -0.34 kg m⁻² [95% CI -0.46 to -0.22]) and body fat percentage calculated from sum of skin-folds (three studies; MD -1.12% [95% CI -1.86 to -0.38]). There is low quality of evidence that workplace physical activity interventions significantly reduce body weight and BMI. Effects on percentage body fat calculated from bioelectrical impedance or hydrostatic weighing, waist circumference, sum of skin-folds and waist-hip ratio could not be investigated properly because of a lack of studies. Subgroup analyses showed a greater reduction in body weight of physical activity and diet interventions containing an environmental component. As the clinical relevance of the pooled effects may be substantial on a population level, we recommend workplace physical activity and dietary behaviour interventions, including an environment component, in order to prevent weight gain.

ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of a worksite social and physical environment intervention on need for recovery (i.e., early symptoms of work-related mental and physical fatigue), physical activity and relaxation. Also, the effectiveness of the separate interventions was investigated.MethodsIn this 2×2 factorial design study, 412 office employees from a financial service provider participated. Participants were allocated to the combined social and physical intervention, to the social intervention only, to the physical intervention only or to the control group. The primary outcome measure was need for recovery. Secondary outcomes were work-related stress (i.e., exhaustion, detachment and relaxation), small breaks, physical activity (i.e., stair climbing, active commuting, sport activities, light/moderate/vigorous physical activity) and sedentary behavior. Outcomes were measured by questionnaires at baseline, 6 and 12 months follow-up. Multilevel analyses were performed to investigate the effects of the three interventions.ResultsIn all intervention groups, a non-significant reduction was found in need for recovery. In the combined intervention (n = 92), exhaustion and vigorous physical activities decreased significantly, and small breaks at work and active commuting increased significantly compared to the control group. The social intervention (n = 118) showed a significant reduction in exhaustion, sedentary behavior at work and a significant increase in small breaks at work and leisure activities. In the physical intervention (n = 96), stair climbing at work and active commuting significantly increased, and sedentary behavior at work decreased significantly compared to the control group.ConclusionNone of the interventions was effective in improving the need for recovery. It is recommended to implement the social and physical intervention among a population with higher baseline values of need for recovery. Furthermore, the intervention itself could be improved by increasing the intensity of the intervention (for example weekly GMI-sessions), providing physical activity opportunities and exercise schemes, and by more drastic environment interventions (restructuring entire department floor).Trial RegistrationNederlands Trial Register NTR2553

Although the study showed some promising results, it is not recommended to implement the current interventions.

Both interventions were better implemented on the level of the team leader than that of the employees. Furthermore, the combined interventions received higher evaluation scores. To increase satisfaction and participation, attention should be paid to both employees and team leaders during implementation.

Bias against mothers in employment decisions has often been explained by the assumption that mothers are less committed and competent than fathers and nonparents. In a simulated employment context, we studied whether this “motherhood bias” can be attenuated by different ways of dividing care responsibilities between partners. We contrasted a main provider model to a shared model in which both partners equally share work and care responsibilities. In the Netherlands, where part‐time work is encouraged and available, sharing work and care is increasingly considered “normal.” As predicted, we found less favorable perceptions of full‐time working mothers who are main providers than of mothers who share responsibilities with their partner. In contrast, we found least favorable perceptions of fathers who share responsibilities. Our findings show how normative beliefs about parenting dictate that we applaud mothers—and punish fathers—who combine career and care by working reduced hours.

BackgroundSedentary behaviour increases the risk for morbidity. Our primary aim is to determine the proportion and factors associated with objectively measured total and occupational sedentary time in three work settings. Secondary aim is to study the proportion of physical activity and prolonged sedentary bouts.MethodsData were obtained using ActiGraph accelerometers from employees of: 1) a financial service provider (n = 49 men, 31 women), 2) two research institutes (n = 30 men, 57 women), and 3) a construction company (n = 38 men). Total (over the whole day) and occupational sedentary time, physical activity and prolonged sedentary bouts (lasting ≥30 minutes) were calculated by work setting. Linear regression analyses were performed to examine general, health and work-related factors associated with sedentary time.ResultsThe employees of the financial service provider and the research institutes spent 76–80% of their occupational time in sedentary behaviour, 18–20% in light intensity physical activity and 3–5% in moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity. Occupational time in prolonged sedentary bouts was 27–30%. Total time was less sedentary (64–70%), and had more light intensity physical activity (26–33%). The employees of the construction company spent 44% of their occupational time in sedentary behaviour, 49% in light, and 7% in moderate intensity physical activity, and spent 7% in sedentary bouts. Total time spent in sedentary behavior was 56%, 40% in light, and 4% in moderate intensity physical behaviour, and 12% in sedentary bouts. For women, low to intermediate education was the only factor that was negatively associated with occupational sedentary time.ConclusionsSedentary behaviour is high among white-collar employees, especially in highly educated women. A relatively small proportion of sedentary time was accrued in sedentary bouts. It is recommended that worksite health promotion efforts should focus on reducing sedentary behaviour through improving light intensity physical activity.

BackgroundThere is strong evidence to suggest that multiple work-related health problems are preceded by a higher need for recovery. Physical activity and relaxation are helpful in decreasing the need for recovery. This article aims to describe (1) the development and (2) the design of the evaluation of a daily physical activity and relaxation intervention to reduce the need for recovery in office employees.Methods/DesignThe study population will consist of employees of a Dutch financial service provider. The intervention was systematically developed, based on parts of the Intervention Mapping (IM) protocol. Assessment of employees needs was done by combining results of face-to-face interviews, a questionnaire and focus group interviews. A set of theoretical methods and practical strategies were selected which resulted in an intervention program consisting of Group Motivational Interviewing (GMI) supported by a social media platform, and environmental modifications. The Be Active & Relax program will be evaluated in a modified 2 X 2 factorial design. The environmental modifications will be pre-stratified and GMI will be randomised on department level. The program will be evaluated, using 4 arms: (1) GMI and environmental modifications; (2) environmental modifications; (3) GMI; (4) no intervention (control group). Questionnaire data on the primary outcome (need for recovery) and secondary outcomes (daily physical activity, sedentary behaviour, relaxation/detachment, work- and health-related factors) will be gathered at baseline (T0), at 6 months (T1), and at 12 months (T2) follow-up. In addition, an economic and a process evaluation will be performed.DiscussionReducing the need for recovery is hypothesized to be beneficial for employees, employers and society. It is assumed that there will be a reduction in need for recovery after 6 months and 12 months in the intervention group, compared to the control group. Results are expected in 2013.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR2553

Although prospective evidence is necessary to confirm the causal relationships, our findings suggest that engaging in stair climbing, leisure activities, (physical) detachment at work, relaxation and detachment after work is associated with a lower NFR. For future work site health promotion initiatives, interventions might be targeted at improving physical activity and relaxation.