Workplace movement: a qualitative study on office workers’ beliefs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Physical inactivity and long hours being sedentary are well documented as behaviours that contribute to ill health.Such behaviours are prevalent among office workers, who are at risk of diseases like metabolic dysfunction, reduced bone mineral density and heart disease.Using a theory of planned behaviour belief-based approach, the current paper qualitatively explores the behavioural, normative and control beliefs held by sedentary office workers towards physical activity within the work environment.Method: Participants included 43 full-time office workers, who self-report as having a highly sedentary job and work from either a commercial office, home office, or a combination.The study used a semi-structured interview design following the theory of planned behaviour belief elicitation guidelines, and data analysed using a theoretical thematic analysis approach.Results: Participants reported advantages of stress relief, improved focus and productivity and increased positive mood with moving.Disadvantages included feelings of guilt and frustration due to work disruptions from moving more.Mixed reports for others' approval and disapproval were identified.Office layout was a commonly identified facilitator of workplace movement, with job restrictions identified as a common barrier.Conclusions: Findings highlight the importance of workplace culture, organisational support and office layout as key considerations for future interventionalists. KEY POINTS What is already known about this topic:(1) Physical activity and limiting sedentary behaviour are important health behaviours.(2) Office-based employees are at risk for health conditions associated with high levels of sedentary behaviour.(3) Workplace-based physical activity interventions offer a potential solution to reducing the negative impact of sedentary behaviour.What this topic adds:(1) Current findings fill a knowledge gap of the attitudes and beliefs held by sedentary office workers who in contemporary society have more flexible work arrangements, thus providing greater scope of findings to inform future behaviour change programs.(2) Organisational support should be demonstrated through providing information on the benefits along with corrective feedback regarding movement within the workplace.(3) Using choice architecture to design office layouts that facilitate movement is an important consideration for both organisations and individuals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".