Change in work day step counts, wellbeing and job performance in Catalan university employees: a randomised controlled trial.

Anna Puig-Ribera, Jim McKenna, Nicholas Gilson, Wendy J Brown
{"title":"Change in work day step counts, wellbeing and job performance in Catalan university employees: a randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Anna Puig-Ribera,&nbsp;Jim McKenna,&nbsp;Nicholas Gilson,&nbsp;Wendy J Brown","doi":"10.1177/1025382308097693","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Using a randomised controlled trial design, this feasibility study assessed the impact of two walking interventions on quality of life (QoL) and job performance of Catalan university employees. A convenience sample of 70 employees completed baseline and intervention measures of step counts (Yamax SW 200 pedometer), wellbeing (SF-12 questionnaire) and work performance (Work Limitations Questionnaire) over 9 weeks. Before intervention, baseline step counts (five working days) were used to randomly allocate participants to a control (n = 26), \"walking routes\" (n = 19) and \"walking while working\" (n = 25) groups. Intervention effects were evaluated by calculating differences between pre-intervention and intervention data. One-way ANOVA was used to examine differences between groups. No significant group differences were found for changes in work-day step counts, QoL or work performance. When data from the two intervention groups were pooled (n = 44) there was a significant increase in step counts (+659 steps/day; n = 12; p < 0.01) among participants classified as ;Sedentary-Low active' (0-7499 steps/day) at baseline. In contrast there was a significant decrease (-637 steps/day; p < 0.05) in those initially categorised as ;Active' (> 10,000 steps/day; n = 21) and no change in those categorised as ;Moderately Active' (7500-9999, n = 11). The ;Sedentary-Low activity' group showed consistently greater improvements in QoL and work performance scores than the Moderate and Active groups. Initially low active participants showed the greatest increase in step counts and improved QoL and work productivity profiles. These data indicate the potential for improving QoL and job productivity through workplace walking in inactive Catalan employees.</p>","PeriodicalId":79366,"journal":{"name":"Promotion & education","volume":"15 4","pages":"11-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1025382308097693","citationCount":"69","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Promotion & education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1025382308097693","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 69

Abstract

Using a randomised controlled trial design, this feasibility study assessed the impact of two walking interventions on quality of life (QoL) and job performance of Catalan university employees. A convenience sample of 70 employees completed baseline and intervention measures of step counts (Yamax SW 200 pedometer), wellbeing (SF-12 questionnaire) and work performance (Work Limitations Questionnaire) over 9 weeks. Before intervention, baseline step counts (five working days) were used to randomly allocate participants to a control (n = 26), "walking routes" (n = 19) and "walking while working" (n = 25) groups. Intervention effects were evaluated by calculating differences between pre-intervention and intervention data. One-way ANOVA was used to examine differences between groups. No significant group differences were found for changes in work-day step counts, QoL or work performance. When data from the two intervention groups were pooled (n = 44) there was a significant increase in step counts (+659 steps/day; n = 12; p < 0.01) among participants classified as ;Sedentary-Low active' (0-7499 steps/day) at baseline. In contrast there was a significant decrease (-637 steps/day; p < 0.05) in those initially categorised as ;Active' (> 10,000 steps/day; n = 21) and no change in those categorised as ;Moderately Active' (7500-9999, n = 11). The ;Sedentary-Low activity' group showed consistently greater improvements in QoL and work performance scores than the Moderate and Active groups. Initially low active participants showed the greatest increase in step counts and improved QoL and work productivity profiles. These data indicate the potential for improving QoL and job productivity through workplace walking in inactive Catalan employees.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
加泰罗尼亚大学员工工作日步数、幸福感和工作表现的变化:一项随机对照试验。
采用随机对照试验设计,本可行性研究评估了两种步行干预对加泰罗尼亚大学员工生活质量(QoL)和工作绩效的影响。方便样本为70名员工,在9周内完成了步数(Yamax SW 200计步器)、幸福感(SF-12问卷)和工作绩效(工作限制问卷)的基线和干预测量。干预前,使用基线步数(5个工作日)将参与者随机分配到对照组(n = 26)、“步行路线”组(n = 19)和“边走边走”组(n = 25)。通过计算干预前和干预后数据的差异来评估干预效果。采用单因素方差分析检验组间差异。在工作日步数、生活质量或工作表现方面没有发现显著的组间差异。当两个干预组的数据合并(n = 44)时,步数显著增加(+659步/天;N = 12;p < 0.01),基线时被归类为“久坐-低活动”(0-7499步/天)的参与者。相比之下,有显著减少(-637步/天;p < 0.05),最初被归类为“活跃”(> 10,000步/天;n = 21),而那些被归类为“中度运动”的人没有变化(7500-9999,n = 11)。“久坐不动”组在生活质量和工作表现得分上的改善一直比“适度运动”组和“积极运动”组更大。起初,活动量低的参与者步数增加最多,生活质量和工作效率也得到了改善。这些数据表明,通过不活跃的加泰罗尼亚员工在工作场所散步,可以改善生活质量和工作效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Promotion & Education becomes Global Health Promotion. Sense of coherence and coping in adolescents directly affected by the 1991--5 war in Croatia. Change in work day step counts, wellbeing and job performance in Catalan university employees: a randomised controlled trial. The work plan for the newly created IUHPE Vice President for Strategy and Governance. Participatory approaches to promote healthy lifestyles among Turkish and Moroccan women in Amsterdam.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1