Impact of a workplace ‘sit less, move more’ program on efficiency-related outcomes of office employees

Abstract

BackgroundFew studies have examined the impact of ‘sit less, move more’ interventions on workplace performance. This study assessed the short and mid-term impacts of and patterns of change within, a 19-week workplace web-based intervention (Walk@WorkSpain; W@WS; 2010–11) on employees´ presenteeism, mental well-being and lost work performance.MethodsA site randomised control trial recruited employees at six Spanish university campuses (n = 264; 42 ± 10 years; 171 female), assigned by worksite and campus to an Intervention (IG; used W@WS; n = 129; 87 female) or an active Comparison group (A-CG; pedometer, paper diary and self-reported sitting time; n = 135; 84 female). A linear mixed model assessed changes between the baseline, ramping (8 weeks), maintenance (11 weeks) and follow-up (two months) phases for the IG versus A-CG on (i) % of lost work productivity (Work Limitations Questionnaire; WLQ); (ii) three scales for presenteeism (WLQ) assessing difficulty meeting scheduling demands (Time), performing cognitive and inter-personal tasks (Mental-Interpersonal) and decrements in meeting the quantity, quality and timeliness of completed work (Output); and (iii) mental well-being (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale). T-tests assessed differences between groups for changes on the main outcomes. In the IG, a multivariate logistic regression model identified patterns of response according to baseline socio-demographic variables, physical activity and sitting time.ResultsThere was a significant 2 (group) × 2 (program time points) interaction for the Time (F [3]=8.69, p = 0.005), Mental-Interpersonal (F [3]=10.01, p = 0.0185), Output scales for presenteeism (F [3]=8.56, p = 0.0357), and for % of lost work performance (F [3]=10.31, p = 0.0161). Presenteeism and lost performance rose significantly in both groups across all study time points; after baseline performance was consistently better in the IG than in the A-CG. Better performance was linked to employees being more active (Time, p = 0.041) and younger (Mental-interpersonal, p = 0.057; Output, p = 0.017). Higher total sitting time during nonworking days (Mental-interpersonal, p = 0.019) and lower sitting time during workdays (WLQ Index, p = 0.013) also improved performance.ConclusionVersus an active comparison condition, a ‘sit less, move more` workplace intervention effectively reduced an array of markers of lost workday productivity.Trial registration NCT02960750; Date of registration: 07/11/2016.

Psychosocial effects of workplace exercise – A systematic review

“…Most studies (N=17) (24,25,(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47) were conducted in Europe, the rest in North America (48,49), Japan (50,51), and Australia (52). The workplace settings varied from employees working in office/having administrative tasks (N=10) (34,35,37,38,41,43,(47)(48)(49)52), to health personnel in hospitals/nursing homes (N=5) (25,33,44,46,50), to laboratory technicians (N=2) (39,42), to other manual job settings or workplaces with a mix of work tasks (N=5) (24,36,40,45,51). Sample size ranged from 24-860 participants, with a total of 4010 participants throughout the studies.…”

“…Sample size ranged from 24-860 participants, with a total of 4010 participants throughout the studies. The majority of studies (N=12) (25,33,34,36,38,40,42,43,46,(50)(51)(52) were based on healthy workers, three studies (24,39,48) examined workers with musculoskeletal problems, three studies (41,45,49) looked at sedentary/physical inactive workers, two studies (35,47) included workers with light mental health complaints, one study (37) looked at workers with both mental and/or musculoskeletal complaints, and another (44) examined high aged workers. The exercise interventions consisted of a wide range of different exercises offered from 6-86 weeks (21 months), with most studies offering an intervention period ranging from 8-12 weeks (24, 25, 33-37, 39, 47, 48, 50-52) N=13.…”

“…The exercise interventions consisted of a wide range of different exercises offered from 6-86 weeks (21 months), with most studies offering an intervention period ranging from 8-12 weeks (24, 25, 33-37, 39, 47, 48, 50-52) N=13. Interventions could be subdivided into cardio/aerobics (N=3) (35,36,46), strength/resistance (N=6) (24,25,33,40,42,43), yoga (41,47), and a mix in seven (34,39,(42)(43)(44)(45)49). Many studies were designed with an active reference group, offering an alternative exercise (24,25,33,34,36,43,49).…”

“…Only four studies (35,38,45,47) had psychosocial outcomes as their primary outcomes. In ten (24,25,33,34,39,41,42,46,50,52), it appeared as secondary outcome whereas it was one equal outcome among others in eight studies (36,37,40,43,44,48,49,51). The same trial was used in two studies (25, 33) (intervention and study population) to conduct two different analyses with different outcome measures.…”

“…Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (31) and based on the evaluation the studies were graded into four categories: very high risk, high risk, moderate risk, low risk. Other parameters used to evaluate the quality of the studies were based on the GRADE approach (32) (39) and Puig-Ribera et al (41)] who reported to be single-blinded. All reported outcomes relevant for this review were collected with self-reported questionnaires and thus not blinded.…”