A multi-component intervention to sit less and move more in a contact centre setting: a feasibility study

Abstract

Background: Call agents spend~90% of their working day seated, which may negatively impact health, productivity, and wellbeing. This study aimed to explore the acceptability and feasibility of a multi-component workplace intervention targeting increased activity and decreased prolonged sitting in the contact centre setting prior to a full-scale effectiveness trial. Methods: An 8-week non-randomised pre-post feasibility study was conducted. Using a mixed methods approach, focus groups and interviews were thematically analysed to explore the acceptability and feasibility of key study phases, and provide context to agents' process evaluation and survey responses. The multicomponent intervention, conducted in a single call centre, included height-adjustable workstations, emails, education and training sessions, and support from team leaders and a workplace champion. Results: Six (of 20) team leaders were recruited, with 17 of 84 call agents (78% female, 39.3 ± 11.9 years) completing baseline assessments and 13 completing follow-up. High workload influenced recruitment. Call agents perceived assessments as acceptable, though strategies are needed to enhance fidelity. Education sessions, height-adjustable workstations and emails were perceived as the most effective components; however, height-adjustable hot-desks were not perceived as feasible in this setting. Conclusions: This study has identified unique, pragmatic considerations for conducting a multi-level, multi-component PA and SB intervention and associated evaluation in highly sedentary call agents in the challenging contact centre setting. The intervention was largely perceived positively, with call agents and team leaders describing numerous perceived positive effects on behavioural, health and work-related outcomes. Findings will be of value to researchers attempting to intervene in contact centres and will be used by the current authors to design a subsequent trial.

Engagement, Acceptability, Usability, and Preliminary Efficacy of a Self-Monitoring Mobile Health Intervention to Reduce Sedentary Behavior in Belgian Older Adults: Mixed Methods Study

“…A day was considered invalid if there was limited postural variation (ie, ≥95% of wear time in one activity), a limited number of steps (<500 steps/day), or fewer than 10 hours of valid waking wear time [ 22 , 23 ]. Summary data from the algorithm were quality checked using heat maps against participants’ diaries, and corrections were made where needed [ 22 , 23 ]. Only participants with at least 5 days of valid activPAL data on both time points were included in the analyses [ 24 ].…”

Design, rationale and analysis plan for the Stand Up for Health trial in contact centres: a stepped wedge feasibility study

“…The combination of high levels of sedentary behaviour, and the number of constraining factors, suggest that call centres require tailored interventions. However, there have been few attempts to do so [28][29][30][31]. Feasibility work with centres in Liverpool, UK, identified a number of challenges to reducing sedentary behaviour and incorporating physical activity into the shifts of call centre workers [29].…”

“…However, there have been few attempts to do so [28][29][30][31]. Feasibility work with centres in Liverpool, UK, identified a number of challenges to reducing sedentary behaviour and incorporating physical activity into the shifts of call centre workers [29]. These included having sufficient buy-in from team leaders and wider stakeholders to support intervention activities to reduce sedentary behaviour, and high call centre staff attrition.…”

“…To date, the evaluations of interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour and increase physical activity conducted in contact centres have all been non-randomised, quasi-experimental studies and most were small pilot or feasibility studies with short study durations. Only one of the studies was conducted within the UK, but this study was only conducted in a single contact centre with very small sample size (13 individuals completing follow-up), and with a short study duration of 8 weeks [ 29 ]. Randomised designs are needed because they are less susceptible to biases, but this has to be balanced by what is pragmatic in this setting.…”

Design, rationale, and analysis plan for the Stand Up for Health trial in contact centres: a stepped wedge feasibility study

“…To date, the evaluations of interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour and increase physical activity conducted in contact centres have all been non-randomised, quasi-experimental studies and most were small pilot or feasibility studies with short study durations. Only one of the studies was conducted within the United Kingdom, but this study was only conducted in a single contact centre with very small sample size (13 individuals completing follow-up), and with a short study duration of 8 weeks (29). Randomised designs are needed because they are less susceptible to biases, but this has to be balanced by what is pragmatic in this setting.…”