Systematic Review of the Influence of Physical Work Environment on Office Workers’ Physical Activity Behavior

Background Many American workers spend over 7 hours a day at work in primarily sedentary office work. Physical activity is a key aspect of optimizing health and preventing disease; yet, 80% of American adults do not meet the recommended guidelines for physical activity. In this systematic review, the relationship between physical work environment and physical activity among office workers was explored. Methods Of the 321 studies screened, 26 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included for evaluation in this systematic review. Results Of the 26 studies, four were cross-sectional studies, 14 were quasi-experimental studies, and eight were randomized control trials. Physical activity during the workday was measured using self-report surveys and electromechanical devices such as accelerometers. Physical work environments examined by the studies included different types of desks ( n = 16), office arrangements ( n = 5), and building design ( n = 5). In nine studies, office environments and building work environments designed to promote activity using active design principles such as stairs and flexible workspaces were associated with increased physical activity. Sit–stand desks reduced overall sitting time, but had a minimal effect on physical activity. Conclusion/Application to practice Offices and buildings designed for activity had the largest impact on physical activity among office workers. To increase physical activity in office workers, focus should be placed on opportunities to increase incidental movement that can increase physical activity throughout the workday. Occupational health nurses should advocate workspace designs that can increase physical activity in workers.

The Role of Executive Function in the Effectiveness of Multi-Component Interventions Targeting Physical Activity Behavior in Office Workers

A knowledge gap remains in understanding how to improve the intervention effectiveness in office workers targeting physically active (PA) behavior. We aim to identify the modifying effect of executive function (EF) on the intervention effectiveness targeting PA-behaviors, and to verify whether the observed effect varies by Job Demand Control (JDC) categories. This workplace-based intervention study included 245 participants who were randomized into a control group and two intervention arms—promoting physical activity (iPA) group or reducing sedentary behavior (iSED) group. The interventions were conducted through counselling-based cognitive behavioral therapy and team activities over 6 months. PA-behaviors were measured by an accelerometer. EF was assessed by the Trail Making Test-B, Stroop, and n-back test. The JDC categories were measured by the demand control questionnaire. Higher EF level at baseline was significantly associated with the intervention effect on increased sleep time (β-coefficient: 3.33, p = 0.003) and decreased sedentary time (−2.76, p = 0.049) in the iSED-group. Participants with active jobs (high job demands, high control) presented significantly increased light-intensity PA in the iSED-group in comparison to the control group. Among participants with a high level of EF and active jobs, relative to the control group, the iPA-group showed a substantial increase in light-intensity PA (1.58, p = 0.036) and the iSED-group showed a tendency of reducing sedentary behavior (−5.35, p = 0.054). The findings suggest that office workers with a high EF and active jobs may benefit most from an intervention study targeting PA-behaviors.

A pandémia hatása a személyes kapcsolathálózati struktúrára.

Összefoglaló. Jelen írásban a biztonság három dimenziójának (egészség, munka, emberi kapcsolatok) összefüggésében a home office pozitív és negatív jellemzőit vizsgáljuk meg a pandémiás időszakban. Tanulmányunk egy 2020 májusában, reprezentatív mintán lekérdezett felmérés adataira épül, mely a vírushelyzetre vonatkozó kérdéseket és egy kapcsolati naplót tartalmazott. Az eredmények alapján a home office-ban dolgozók kevésbé voltak kitéve a fertőzésveszélynek: kevesebb időt töltöttek saját otthonukon kívül és tömegközlekedést is kevésbé használtak. Másrészt az otthonról dolgozók átlagosan kevesebb emberrel is találkoztak személyesen. A találkozásokban mutatkozó különbséget ugyanakkor kifejezetten a munkatársi kapcsolatok magyarázzák, míg a családi és baráti kapcsolataik megvédték az otthonról dolgozókat a társas izoláció veszélyétől. Summary. The emergence of the Covid-19 virus in spring 2020 has significantly transformed the daily lives of the population. One of the major changes affecting the world of work is that many people have been able to work remotely from home. In this paper, we focus on the home office phenomenon with regard to the three dimensions of security (health, work and human relations) and examine its positive and negative impacts in the context of human relations during the pandemic. It is assumed that home office is more secure against the virus, as those working from home may choose not to leave their homes at all and thus protect themselves from the virus by being physically isolated. On the other hand, it is also assumed that home office workers encounter fewer people than non-home office workers and are therefore more vulnerable to social isolation. In our study, we compare the characteristics of these two groups using descriptive statistics based on data from a national representative sample of 1,001 people contacted by telephone in May 2020. The survey included questions on the pandemic situation on the one hand, and a so-called contact diary on the other hand, in which respondents were asked to name all persons (and their characteristics) with whom they had spoken on that day beyond saying hello. First, the results show that home office workers were indeed less exposed to the risk of infection, as they spent significantly less time away from home, used public transport less, and none of them were abroad. Second, our data also show that there is a significant difference in the number of face-to-face encounters between home and non-home workers. Home office workers met on average two people face-to-face on the day of the survey, while non-home office workers met on average five people. While no significant difference was found in the number of relatives – whether or not they lived under the same roof as the respondent – between home office workers and those who went to work, the number of encounters with non-relatives was significantly higher among non-home office workers. The difference was mainly due to workplace contacts. This suggests that those working from home were protected from the risk of social isolation by their emotionally and physically close relationships. These results further support the finding that, in a crisis situation, the security provided by family ties is particularly valued and strong bonds are essential for the individual.