Worksite interventions to increase stair climbing; reasons for caution

Eves, Frank F.; Webb, Oliver J.

doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.03.011

Cited by 60 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, investigators have improved upon lacklustre effects of early work/community interventions, by refining message content (Eves et al, 2006). Encouragingly, heightened effects on stair climbing have been achieved in overweight (+5.4%) vs. normal-weight (+2.5%) office workers (Eves et al, 2006).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite reasons for optimism, evidence is limited regarding longevity of effects, relative efficacy in sub-groups (e.g. men vs. women [Coleman and Gonzalez, 2001;Eves et al, 2006]), optimal message content, value of culturally-tailored prompts and benefits of additional initiatives (e.g. stairwell renovation).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In practice, moderators are numerous and show considerable site-to-site variation. They include demographics (Andersen et al, 1999;Blamey et al, 1995;Brownell et al, 1980;Bungum et al, 2007;Eves et al, 2006;Grimstvedt et al, 2010;Lewis and Eves, 2011;Webb and Eves, 2007); spatial characteristics (e.g. stairwell height [Webb and Eves, 2007]); 'pedestrian volume' (Lewis and Eves, 2011;Webb and Eves, 2007); 'behavioural' context (e.g.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Public-access interventions are more frequently successful than work/community interventions (27/31 vs. 3/10) and produce larger absolute increases in rates of stair climbing (maximum=10.6% vs. 9.2%) [Nocon et al, 2010]. An explanation is that random waiting time associated with elevators dilutes potential effects, whereas escalators are continuously available (Eves et al, 2006). Given encouraging evidence for public-access interventions, health agencies have funded regional campaigns; the British Heart Foundation installed prompts throughout the London underground.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Promoting stair climbing in public-access settings: An audit of intervention opportunities in England

Webb

Smith

2011

Preventive Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results 5% of venues had ≥1 true POC (quasi POC=3%). Aggregating across areas, there was a true and quasi POC for every 243,924 and 379,437 people, respectively. There were regional variations; one area had 10 true/quasi POCs, whilst 10/24 remaining areas had none. POCs were more common in airports (4/6 venues) than malls (11/85) and train stations (4/215). ConclusionAlthough public-access POCs reach sizeable audiences, their availability in England is sporadic, precluding nationwide campaigns. Interventions should be considered locally, based on available POCs. Work/community venues (e.g. offices, hospitals), where pedestrians choose between stairs and elevators, may provide greater intervention opportunities.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Promoting stair climbing in public-access settings: An audit of intervention opportunities in England

Webb

Smith

2011

Preventive Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dedicated bicycle lanes increase cycling, and buildings can be designed to encourage stair use over escalators and elevators [48]. Two minutes of additional stair climbing per day burns enough calories to offset the average weight gain of one pound per year in U.S. adults [49].…”

Section: Excess Caloriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Public Health Approach to Winning the War Against Cancer

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The "war on cancer" in the United States has been viewed primarily as an effort to develop and disseminate cancer cures, but cancer is far more easily prevented than cured. There are three major approaches to cancer prevention: Primary prevention, through reduction in risk factors and changes to the environment that reduce human exposure to widely-consumed cancer-promoting agents. The most important actions for primary prevention of cancer are those that reduce tobacco use through taxation, smokefreeenvironmentpolicies,advertisingrestrictions,counteradvertising, and cessation programs. The World Health Organization's MPOWER package outlines these actions, each of which covered less than 5% of people in the world in 2007. Similarly, cancer can be prevented by reducing alcohol consumption through policies such as alcohol taxes and limits on alcohol sales, and restoring caloric balance through policies such as creating healthier food environments and engineering the built environment to increase opportunities for physical activity. Vaccination is an effective approach to preventing specific virus-associated cancers, such as using human papillomavirus vaccine to prevent cervical cancer and hepatitis B virus vaccine to prevent hepatocellular cancer. Secondary prevention reduces cancer mortality through screening and early treatment; this approach has been used successfully for breast and cervical cancer but is still underused against colon cancer. Progress can be made in all three approaches to cancer prevention, but will require a greater emphasis on public health programs and public policy. Winning the war on cancer will require a much larger investment in prevention to complement efforts to improve treatment.

show abstract

Ground reaction force and required friction during stair ascent and descent

Huang

Chiu

2016

Hum Ftrs & Erg Mfg Svc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A stair climbing experiment was performed using a four‐stair instrumented stairway. A force platform was mounted in the first stair. Four floor surfaces, including the original force platform surface and three additional floor coverings on the platform, were tested. Human subjects wore the same type of lab shoes and ascended and descended the stairway. Their ground reaction forces were collected. The results showed that when descending, the double‐stair condition resulted in significant (p < .0001) higher vertical ground reaction force at foot landing as compared to the single‐stair condition. The vertical ground reaction force at foot push‐off for stair ascent were significantly (p < .0001) higher than those for stair descent. The mean required coefficient of friction ranged from 0.086 to 0.245 and from 0.051 to 0.246 for foot landing and foot push‐off spots, respectively. Stair descent required significant (p < .001) higher friction than stair ascent both at foot landing and push‐off. Double‐stair stepping required higher friction than single‐stair stepping. Stair descent should be of primary concern in assessing the risk of slip‐ and fall‐related incidents on stairway, and double‐stair descent should be avoided.

show abstract

Worksite interventions to increase stair climbing; reasons for caution

Cited by 60 publications

References 22 publications

Promoting stair climbing in public-access settings: An audit of intervention opportunities in England

Promoting stair climbing in public-access settings: An audit of intervention opportunities in England

A Public Health Approach to Winning the War Against Cancer

Ground reaction force and required friction during stair ascent and descent

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About