Development of Digital Strategies for Reducing Sedentary Behavior in a Hybrid Office Environment: Modified Delphi Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Hybrid work is the new modus operandi for many office workers, leading to more sedentary behavior than office-only working. Given the potential of digital interventions to reduce sedentary behavior and the current lack of studies evaluating these interventions for home office settings, it is crucial to develop digital interventions for such contexts involving all stakeholders. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to reach expert consensus on the most feasible work strategies and the most usable digital elements as a delivery method to reduce sedentary behavior in the home office context. METHODS: A modified Delphi study including 3 survey rounds and focus groups was conducted to achieve consensus. The first Delphi round consisted of two 9-point Likert scales for assessing the feasibility of work strategies and the potential usefulness of digital elements to deliver the strategies. The work strategies were identified and selected from a scoping review, a systematic review, and 2 qualitative studies involving managers and employees. The median and mean absolute deviation from the median for each item are reported. The second round involved 2 ranking lists with the highly feasible strategies and highly useful digital elements based on round 1 responses to order the list according to experts' preferences. The weighted average ranking for each item was calculated to determine the most highly ranked work strategies and digital elements. The third round encompassed work strategies with a weight above the median from round 2 to be matched with the most useful digital elements to implement each strategy. In total, 4 focus groups were additionally conducted to gain a greater understanding of the findings from the Delphi phase. Focus groups were analyzed using the principles of reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 27 international experts in the field of occupational health participated in the first round, with response rates of 86% (25/29) and 66% (19/29) in rounds 2 and 3, respectively, and 52% (15/29) in the focus groups. Consensus was achieved on 18 work strategies and 16 digital elements. Feedback on activity progress and goal achievement; creating an action plan; and standing while reading, answering phone calls, or conducting videoconferences were the most feasible work strategies, whereas wrist-based activity trackers, a combination of media, and app interfaces in smartphones were the most useful digital elements. Moreover, experts highlighted the requirement of combining multiple levels of strategies, such as social support, physical environment, and individual strategies, to enhance their implementation and effectiveness in reducing sedentary behavior when working from home. CONCLUSIONS: This expert consensus provided a foundation for developing digital interventions for sedentary behavior in home office workers. Ongoing interventions should enable the evaluation of feasible strategies delivered via useful digital elements in home office or hybrid contexts.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,035 | 0,034 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».