Flexibility in work time impacts workers’ lunch habits
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Workplaces have been highlighted as a promising place to promote healthy food choices because of the recurrence of eating occasions (Wanjek, 2005). Beyond interventional research promoting healthier food choices in workplace restaurants, much remains to be understood regarding the specificities of eating choices of individuals during their worktime. Specifically, although working conditions seem likely to play a key role in workers’ eating choices (Raulio et al., 2007), the nature and extent of this association are unclear. Worktime organisation and workers’ control over their own schedule have been proposed to account for differences in the way workers interact with their workplace food environment (Massey & Saulais, in press ; Raulio et al., 2012). Objectives: The objective of this research is to investigate the relationships between two time-related working conditions, schedule flexibility and control over one's schedule, and workers’ lunch habits. Methodology: An ad-hoc online questionnaire was developed partly after the French Working Conditions survey. 1,139 French wage-earning workers, recruited from an online survey panel, were asked about their time-related working conditions, their behavior during lunch breaks over a two-week period (including non-food related behaviors such as taking care of personal matters during break) and their subjective experience of these lunch breaks in relation with time (such as feeling rushed during lunch break). Results: Workers with more flexibility in their schedule were more likely to report using lunch breaks as an adjusting variable in their workday, either by reducing it to compensate for their workload (p = .0001) or to attend to personal matters (p = .04). Perceived control over worktime organization also affected eating strategies during lunchtime. Conclusion: This research is one of the first to investigate possible relationships between working conditions and workers’ lunch habits. Although results provide support to a link between time-related working conditions and lunch behaviors, socioeconomic status (SES), which have been shown to impact workers’ behaviors, could be a confounding factor (Massey & Saulais, in press) , whose effect needs to be further investigated in controlled conditions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».