Healthy workplaces, active employees: A systematic literature review on impacts of workplace environments on employees’ physical activity and sedentary behavior

Zhu, Xuemei; Yoshikawa, Aya; Qiu, Lingyi; Lu, Zhipeng; Lee, Chanam; Ory, Marcia G.

doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106455

Cited by 55 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 130 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Differences between users and non-users were mainly found during working hours; users sat 1.64 h/8 h workday less and stood 1.51 h/8 h workday more than non-users. In most intervention studies including sit-stand workstations, reductions in sitting time were mainly replaced by increased standing time [40]. Particularly, time in static standing bouts seemed to be high in users in the current study, which was in line with the relatively high self-reported durations of standing episodes (mean 0.94; SD = 0.54 h/episode).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Natural Patterns of Sitting, Standing and Stepping During and Outside Work—Differences between Habitual Users and Non-Users of Sit–Stand Workstations

Renaud

Huysmans

Ploeg

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sit–stand workstations have shown to reduce sitting time in office workers on a group level. However, movement behaviour patterns might differ between subgroups of workers. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine sitting, standing and stepping outcomes between habitual users and non-users of sit–stand workstations. From an international office population based in the Netherlands, 24 users and 25 non-users of sit–stand workstations were included (all had long-term access to these workstations). Using the ActivPAL, sitting, standing and stepping were objectively measured during and outside working hours. Differences in outcomes between users and non-users were analysed using linear regression. During working hours, users sat less (−1.64; 95% IC= −2.27–−1.01 h/8 h workday) and stood more (1.51; 95% IC= 0.92–2.10 h/8 h workday) than non-users. Attenuated but similar differences were also found for total sitting time over the whole week. Furthermore, time in static standing bouts was relatively high for users during working hours (median= 0.56; IQR = 0.19−1.08 h/8 h workday). During non-working hours on workdays and during non-working days, no differences were found between users and non-users. During working hours, habitual users of their sit–stand workstation sat substantially less and stood proportionally more than non-users. No differences were observed outside working hours, leading to attenuated but similar differences in total sitting and standing time between users and non-users for total days. This indicated that the users of sit–stand workstations reduced their sitting time at work, but this seemed not to be accompanied by major carry-over or compensatory effects outside working hours.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Natural Patterns of Sitting, Standing and Stepping During and Outside Work—Differences between Habitual Users and Non-Users of Sit–Stand Workstations

Renaud

Huysmans

Ploeg

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As such, it is evident that the typical workplace may be restrictive towards PA due to the diminishing amount of PA being conducted throughout the week. Previous research have suggested that the lack of PA opportunities in the workplace could have adverse effects on mental health and well-being (Ma, Ma, Wang, & Kim, 2020;Zhu et al, 2020). In addition, if working environment provides opportunities for PA engagement this may yield different results in terms of employees' health and well-being.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evaluation of Physical Activity Levels amongst University Employees

Safi¹,

Cole²,

Kelly³

et al. 2021

APE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Approximately 60% of the world's population do not meet the physical activity (PA) guidelines. Physical inactivity is increasing in occupations, with work-related health issues becoming more prevalent. University employees' work in a range of job roles and PA levels in this population is unclear. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate PA levels amongst university employees in a UK Higher Education institution. Four hundred employees (male = 131, female = 269) partook in this quantitative study and completed an online International Physical Activity Questionnaire Long Form (IPAQ-LF) to assess total moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA) and work-related MVPA. A Mann-Whitney U test examined differences in total MVPA and work-related MVPA between genders and a Kruskal-Wallis H test examined differences in total MVPA and work related MVPA between job roles. The findings showed that university employees engaged in a median of 330 minutes and 1770 METs of MVPA across all domains of IPAQ-LF. Further, the median time spent in total work PA was 30 minutes and 123 METs. There was a significant difference between genders, as males engaged in 150 minutes more total MVPA compared to females (p < 0.05). No significant differences were found in total MVPA and work-related MVPA across job roles (p > 0.05). Findings suggest that job role does not affect PA levels within university workplace, although they do propose that males engage in more MVPA compared to females. As a result of the subjective nature of this research, objective research is required to confirm current findings.

show abstract

“…The inclusion criteria were: i) published after 2000 in peer-reviewed journals; ii) fulltext was written in English; iii) observational studies with quantitative analyses, and iv) estimated associations of self-reported or objective built environmental measures around the workplace with physical activity or sedentary behaviour among workers. We conducted the review on articles published after the year 2000 because studies on this topic began to emerge around that time [10]. Those studies which examined only other environmental measures, for example, the social (e.g., organisational support), informational (e.g., posters or programs), and interior (e.g., workstations) environments, which were not incorporated with neighbourhood workplace built environment were excluded.…”

Section: Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Synthesising the broader body of empirical evidence relating to workplace neighbourhood built environment is essential for informing urban design policies to support physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviours among workers. A previous systematic review examining associations of workplace built environments, both inside and neighbourhood attributes, with physical activity and sedentary behaviour reported inconclusive findings for neighbourhood attributes [10]. However, the search strategy used did not employ specific terms relating to characteristics of the neighbourhood built environment such as neighbourhood walkability, destinations, and safety.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Workplace neighbourhood built environment and workers’ physically-active and sedentary behaviour: a systematic review of observational studies

Lin

Koohsari

Liao

et al. 2020

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Many desk-based workers can spend more than half of their working hours sitting, with low levels of physical activity. Workplace neighbourhood built environment may influence workers’ physical activities and sedentary behaviours on workdays. We reviewed and synthesised evidence from observational studies on associations of workplace neighbourhood attributes with domain-specific physical activity and sedentary behaviour and suggested research priorities for improving the quality of future relevant studies. Methods Published studies were obtained from nine databases (PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Scopus, Transport Research International Documentation, MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, and CINAHL) and crosschecked by Google Scholar. Observational studies with quantitative analyses estimating associations between workplace neighbourhood built environment attributes and workers’ physical activity or sedentary behaviour were included. Studies were restricted to those published in English language peer-reviewed journals from 2000 to 2019. Results A total of 55 studies and 455 instances of estimated associations were included. Most instances of potential associations of workplace neighbourhood built environment attributes with total or domain-specific (occupational, transport, and recreational) physical activity were non-significant. However, destination-related attributes (i.e., longer distances from workplace to home and access to car parking) were positively associated with transport-related sedentary behaviour (i.e., car driving). Conclusions The findings reinforce the case for urban design policies on designing mixed-use neighbourhoods where there are opportunities to live closer to workplaces and have access to a higher density of shops, services, and recreational facilities. Studies strengthening correspondence between the neighbourhood built environment attributes and behaviours are needed to identify and clarify potential relationships. Protocol registration The protocol of this systematic review was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 2 December 2019 (registration number: CRD42019137341).

show abstract

Healthy workplaces, active employees: A systematic literature review on impacts of workplace environments on employees’ physical activity and sedentary behavior

Cited by 55 publications

References 130 publications

Natural Patterns of Sitting, Standing and Stepping During and Outside Work—Differences between Habitual Users and Non-Users of Sit–Stand Workstations

Natural Patterns of Sitting, Standing and Stepping During and Outside Work—Differences between Habitual Users and Non-Users of Sit–Stand Workstations

An Evaluation of Physical Activity Levels amongst University Employees

Workplace neighbourhood built environment and workers’ physically-active and sedentary behaviour: a systematic review of observational studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About