Australian office workers' response to sedentary behaviour messaging

• Pages: 189-202
• Date: 01 April 2020
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-12-2018-0157
• Published date: 01 April 2020
• Author: Janine Chapman,Chloe Fletcher,Nadia Corsini,Georgina de Cure
• Subject Matter: Health & social care,Healthcare management,HR & organizational behaviour,Human resource policy,Employee welfare

Australian office workers’

response to sedentary

behaviour messaging

Janine Chapman

Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University,

Adelaide, Australia and

National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA),

Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia

Chloe Fletcher

Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University,

Adelaide, Australia

Nadia Corsini

Rosemary Bryant AO Research Centre, University of South Australia, Adelaide,

Australia, and

Georgina de Cure

School of Psychology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

Abstract

Purpose –To provide insight into how office workers respond to sedentary health messages following the

introduction of the Australian Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines.

Design/methodology/approach –Via online survey, office workers (n5185) reported awareness of the

Guidelines and sedentary risk, availability of workplace movement-based initiatives, and measures of sitting

time, intention, self-efficacy, and perceived barriers to sedentary behaviour. Participants then viewed one of

two brief messages (“Occupational Risk”or “Strategies”); indicated their message receptivity and provided

written recommendations. Participants who consented to a second survey (n5126) completed sitting time and

psychological measures again after four weeks.

Findings –Only 23% were aware of the Guidelines; willingness to follow public health guidance was mixed.

Barriers to adoption were apparent for existing initiatives. Message receptivity was high for both messages.

For the follow-up survey, an improvement in psychological variables and workplace sitting was reported in

those who viewed the Occupational Risk compared to the Strategies message. Qualitative analysis revealed

lack of organisational support and called for increased employer responsibility.

Research limitations/implications –As participants self-selected into the study, the sample may be more

health-conscious than the typical office worker.

Practical implications –Workers are receptive to brief messages and the Occupational Risk message

showed promise in promoting change. However, sedentary exposure is viewed as an organisational-level issue.

A“whole of workplace”approach is needed with co-designed strategies tailored to the culture and working

practices within the organisation.

Originality/value –This study offers insight into avenues for improving the management of prolonged

sitting and workplace sedentary behaviour.

Keywords Sedentary lifestyle, Health behaviour, Health risk behaviours, Workplace

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Prolonged time spent in sedentary behaviours (sitting or lying down while awake, with

energy expenditure ≤1.5 metabolic equivalent) is associated with increased risk of morbidity

and mortality from chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, obesity, and some

forms of cancer (Katzmarzyk et al., 2009;Owen et al., 2010,Van Der Ploeg et al., 2012).

Sedentary time in the occupational, leisure and transport domains has increased

Response to

sedentary

behaviour

messaging

189

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1753-8351.htm

Received 12 December 2018

Revised 9 August 2019

Accepted 19 February 2020

InternationalJournal of Workplace

Health Management

Vol. 13 No. 2, 2020

pp. 189-202

© Emerald Publishing Limited

1753-8351

DOI 10.1108/IJWHM-12-2018-0157