Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to Breaking Up Sitting Time among Desk-Based Office Workers: A Qualitative Investigation Using the TDF and COM-B

Abstract

High amounts of sedentary behaviour, such as sitting, can lead to adverse health consequences. Interventions to break up prolonged sitting in the workplace have used active workstations, although few studies have used behaviour change theory. This study aimed to combine the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation to Behaviour system (COM-B) to investigate perceived barriers and facilitators to breaking up sitting in desk-based office workers. Semi-structured interviews with 25 desk-based employees investigated barriers and facilitators to breaking up sitting in the workplace. Seven core inductive themes were identified: ‘Knowledge-deficit sitting behaviour’, ‘Willingness to change’, ‘Tied to the desk’, ‘Organisational support and interpersonal influences’, ‘Competing motivations’, ‘Emotional influences’, and ‘Inadequate cognitive resources for action’. These themes were then deductively mapped to 11 of the 14 TDF domains and five of the six COM-B constructs. Participants believed that high amounts of sitting had adverse consequences but lacked knowledge regarding recommendations and were at times unmotivated to change. Physical and social opportunities were identified as key influences, including organisational support and height-adjustable desks. Future research should identify intervention functions, policy categories and behaviour change techniques to inform tailored interventions to change sitting behaviour of office workers.

Determinants of weekly sitting time: construct validation of an initial COM-B model and comparison of its predictive validity with the Theory of Planned Behaviour

“…Self-monitoring was the most important Capability indicator, but action planning did not contribute. In this sample those that self-monitored how often they disrupted periods of sitting were able to modestly reduce their sitting behaviour, but did so without making detailed plans about how and when they were going to do this, possibly because of constraints such as job role (Ojo, Bailey, Hewson, & Chater, 2019). Physical health was not an important contributor to Capability.…”

“…More so than physical activity, there also needs to be a distinction between more and less volitional (and habitual) behaviour. Many modern jobs and educational environments necessitate long periods of sitting at a desk (and during commuting) and a lack of (perceived) control (and subsequent planning), both in terms of total sitting time and when it can be interrupted (Ojo et al, 2019). Sitting is highly habitual in nature with the same contextual cue encountered repeatedly every day making the behaviour more automatic (Gardner & Lally, 2013).…”

Healthcare Professionals Promotion of Physical Activity with Older Adults: A Survey of Knowledge and Routine Practice

“…In particular, the domains of Knowledge, Skills and Behavioural Regulation were identified. These domains map directly onto the ‘Capability’ component of the COM-B model of behaviour change [ 20 ]. Building healthcare professionals’ ‘Capability’ to promote physical activity in routine practice through ‘Knowledge’ development: appropriate education on guidelines for physical activity in prevention and treatment of disease is essential.…”

Psychosocial determinants of physical activity among workers: an integrative review

“… 5 The barriers hampering implementation of behavioral change have been classified by factors including individual concerns (e.g., knowledge, skills, attitudes), social context (influence of others), and environmental context (e.g., availability, climate). 20 Scenarios characterized by adverse psychosocial factors have been observed to act as barriers to physical activity in a number of workplace contexts. 2 , 21 , 22 Poor social relationships, for example, may be a psychosocial barrier to participating in social activities.…”