A year-long case study of multicomponent interventions to promote physical activity in office workers: A randomized control trial

IF 3.1 2区 工程技术 Q2 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL
Alec Gonzales , Jia-Hua Lin , Jackie S. Cha
{"title":"A year-long case study of multicomponent interventions to promote physical activity in office workers: A randomized control trial","authors":"Alec Gonzales ,&nbsp;Jia-Hua Lin ,&nbsp;Jackie S. Cha","doi":"10.1016/j.apergo.2024.104333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The purpose of this study was to identify if workplace interventions, (i.e., mindfulness classes and monetary incentives for gym attendance), influenced workers’ physical activity. Office-based participants were randomized into one of four intervention assignments: 1) CONTROL (no interventions) (<em>n</em> = 40), 2) MINDFULNESS (<em>n</em> = 33), 3) GYM INCENTIVE (<em>n</em> = 41), or 4) BOTH mindfulness and gym incentive (<em>n</em> = 31). Activity-tracker and self-reported metabolic expenditure and step counts were gathered between January 2020 and December 2020 whereas the eight-week long interventions were provided between January and March 2020, when the impact of COVID-19 pandemic started. While physical activity decreased during the follow-up months, percent changes of physical activity at 1-, 2-, and 9-month follow-ups compared to baseline show no significant differences between or across the four intervention assignments (<em>p</em> &gt; 0.05). These results suggest that the intervention assignments had no effect on physical activity from baseline. The lack of effectiveness of these interventions on participant physical activity could be attributed to the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic, and any effects of the interventions could not outweigh the effects of the pandemic.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55502,"journal":{"name":"Applied Ergonomics","volume":"120 ","pages":"Article 104333"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Ergonomics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003687024001108","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to identify if workplace interventions, (i.e., mindfulness classes and monetary incentives for gym attendance), influenced workers’ physical activity. Office-based participants were randomized into one of four intervention assignments: 1) CONTROL (no interventions) (n = 40), 2) MINDFULNESS (n = 33), 3) GYM INCENTIVE (n = 41), or 4) BOTH mindfulness and gym incentive (n = 31). Activity-tracker and self-reported metabolic expenditure and step counts were gathered between January 2020 and December 2020 whereas the eight-week long interventions were provided between January and March 2020, when the impact of COVID-19 pandemic started. While physical activity decreased during the follow-up months, percent changes of physical activity at 1-, 2-, and 9-month follow-ups compared to baseline show no significant differences between or across the four intervention assignments (p > 0.05). These results suggest that the intervention assignments had no effect on physical activity from baseline. The lack of effectiveness of these interventions on participant physical activity could be attributed to the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic, and any effects of the interventions could not outweigh the effects of the pandemic.

一项为期一年的多成分干预案例研究,旨在促进办公室工作人员的体育锻炼:随机对照试验。
本研究旨在确定工作场所干预措施(即正念课程和对参加健身房活动的金钱奖励)是否会影响工人的体育锻炼。办公室参与者被随机分配到四种干预措施中的一种:1)控制(无干预)(n = 40);2)正念(n = 33);3)健身房激励(n = 41);或 4)正念和健身房激励(n = 31)。2020 年 1 月至 2020 年 12 月期间收集了活动追踪器和自我报告的代谢消耗和步数,而 2020 年 1 月至 3 月(COVID-19 大流行影响开始之时)则提供了长达八周的干预。虽然体力活动在随访期间有所减少,但与基线相比,1 个月、2 个月和 9 个月随访期间的体力活动百分比变化在四个干预任务之间没有显著差异(P > 0.05)。这些结果表明,从基线来看,干预措施对体力活动没有影响。这些干预措施对参与者体力活动缺乏效果的原因可能是 COVID-19 大流行病的影响,干预措施的任何效果都无法抵消大流行病的影响。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Ergonomics
Applied Ergonomics 工程技术-工程:工业
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
9.40%
发文量
248
审稿时长
53 days
期刊介绍: Applied Ergonomics is aimed at ergonomists and all those interested in applying ergonomics/human factors in the design, planning and management of technical and social systems at work or leisure. Readership is truly international with subscribers in over 50 countries. Professionals for whom Applied Ergonomics is of interest include: ergonomists, designers, industrial engineers, health and safety specialists, systems engineers, design engineers, organizational psychologists, occupational health specialists and human-computer interaction specialists.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信