ArticleBMC public health2017
How did the public respond to the 2015 expert consensus public health guidance statement on workplace sedentary behaviour? A qualitative analysis.
Article in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Perceptions of physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines among end-users and stakeholders: a systematic review.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2022Pooled it
- "Why would you want to stand?" an account of the lived experience of employees taking part in a workplace sit-stand desk intervention.BMC public health · 2019Trial
- Office workers' experiences of attempts to reduce sitting-time: an exploratory, mixed-methods uncontrolled intervention pilot study.BMC public health · 2019Trial
- An intervention to promote positive homeworker health and wellbeing through effective home-working practices: a feasibility and acceptability study.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Factors Influencing Anxiety Among WeChat Users During the Early Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Mainland China: Cross-sectional Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to Breaking Up Sitting Time among Desk-Based Office Workers: A Qualitative Investigation Using the TDF and COM-B.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Office workers' beliefs about reducing sitting time at work: a belief elicitation study.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2018Article
- "Could you sit down please?" A qualitative analysis of employees' experiences of standing in normally-seated workplace meetings.PloS one · 2018Article
- On Your Feet to Earn Your Seat: pilot RCT of a theory-based sedentary behaviour reduction intervention for older adults.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2017Article
- The ReSiT study (reducing sitting time): rationale and protocol for an exploratory pilot study of an intervention to reduce sitting time among office workers.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn June 2015, an expert consensus guidance statement was published recommending that office workers accumulate 2-4 h of standing and light activity daily and take regular breaks from prolonged sitting. This paper describes public responses to media coverage of the guidance, so as to understand public acceptability of the recommendations within the guidance, and perceptions of sitting and standing as health behaviours.
methodsUK news media websites that had reported on the sedentary workplace guidance statement, and permitted viewers to post comments responding to the story, were identified. 493 public comments, posted in a one-month period to one of six eligible news media websites, were thematically analysed.
resultsThree themes were extracted: (1) challenges to the credibility of the sedentary workplace guidance; (2) challenges to the credibility of public health; and (3) the guidance as a spur to knowledge exchange. Challenges were made to the novelty of the guidance, the credibility of its authors, the strength of its evidence base, and its applicability to UK workplaces. Public health was commonly mistrusted and viewed as a tool for controlling the public, to serve a paternalistic agenda set by a conspiracy of stakeholders with hidden non-health interests. Knowledge exchanges focused on correcting others' misinterpretations, raising awareness of historical or scientific context, debating current workplace health policies, and sharing experiences around sitting and standing.
conclusionsThe guidance provoked exchanges of health-promoting ideas among some, thus demonstrating the potential for sitting reduction messages to be translated into everyday contexts by lay champions. However, findings also demonstrated confusion, misunderstanding and misapprehension among some respondents about the health value of sitting and standing. Predominantly unfavourable, mistrusting responses reveal significant hostility towards efforts to displace workplace sitting with standing, and towards public health science more broadly. Concerns about the credibility and purpose of public health testify to the importance of public engagement in public health guidance development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.