Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38844904›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

"Are we working (too) comfortably?": a focus group study to understand sedentary behaviour when working at home and identify intervention strategies.

Sarah Morton, Claire Fitzsimons, Divya Sivaramakrishnan, Ruth Jepson, Ailsa Niven

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sarah MortonPhysical Activity for Health Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 8AQ, UK.
Claire FitzsimonsPhysical Activity for Health Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 8AQ, UK.
Divya SivaramakrishnanScottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 8AQ, UK.
Ruth JepsonScottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 8AQ, UK.
Ailsa NivenPhysical Activity for Health Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 8AQ, UK. ailsa.niven@ed.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/W003511/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Covid-19 pandemic initiated an enduring shift in working patterns, with many employees now working at home (w@h). This shift has exacerbated existing high levels of occupational sedentary behaviour (SB) in office workers, which is a recognised risk to health and well-being. This study aimed to use the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model to better understand both employees' SB, and line managers behaviour to assist employees to reduce SB when w@h, and identify how employees can best be supported to reduce SB.

methodsThree online focus groups with employees aged 18-40 working in desk-based roles (e.g. administrative / sales / customer services) (n = 21), and three with line managers (n = 21) were conducted. The focus groups facilitated discussion regarding participants' current behaviour, what impacts it, and what could be done to reduce employee SB when w@h. The focus group data were thematically analysed guided by the COM-B framework to understand influences on behaviour, and to identify promising intervention strategies.

resultsMost participants recognised that w@h had elevated employee occupational SB, and line managers reported the importance of supporting employees to manage their workload, and encouraging and modelling taking breaks. There were multiple influences on both employee and line manager behaviour with capability, opportunity and motivation all perceived as influential, although not equally. For example, a major theme related to the reduced physical opportunities for employees to reduce their SB when w@h, including blurred work-life boundaries. Changes in physical opportunities also made supporting employees challenging for line managers. Additionally, the w@h environment included unique social opportunities that negatively impacted the behaviour of both groups, including an expectation to always be present online, and social norms. A range of strategies for reducing SB when w@h at both individual and organisational level were suggested.

conclusionsIt was evident that SB when w@h is influenced by a range of factors, and therefore multi-component intervention strategies are likely to be most effective in reducing SB. Future intervention research is a priority to evaluate and refine strategies, and inform w@h guidance to protect both the short-term and long-term health consequences of elevated SB for those who continue to w@h.

Indexed as

COVID-19Focus GroupsSedentary BehaviorAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMotivationOccupational HealthTeleworkingWorkplaceYoung AdultCOM-BHealthHome-workingOccupationalSedentarySittingTeleworkingWork

Identifiers

PMID38844904
PMCPMC11155077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.