↓ Skip to main content

Intervening to reduce workplace sitting: mediating role of social-cognitive constructs during a cluster randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intervening to reduce workplace sitting: mediating role of social-cognitive constructs during a cluster randomised controlled trial
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12966-017-0483-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nyssa T. Hadgraft, Elisabeth A. H. Winkler, Genevieve N. Healy, Brigid M. Lynch, Maike Neuhaus, Elizabeth G. Eakin, David W. Dunstan, Neville Owen, Brianna S. Fjeldsoe

Abstract

The Stand Up Victoria multi-component intervention successfully reduced workplace sitting time in both the short (three months) and long (12 months) term. To further understand how this intervention worked, we aimed to assess the impact of the intervention on four social-cognitive constructs, and examined whether these constructs mediated intervention effects on workplace sitting time at 3 and 12 months post-baseline. Two hundred and thirty one office-based workers (14 worksites, single government employer) were randomised to intervention or control conditions by worksite. The intervention comprised organisational, environmental, and individual level elements. Participant characteristics and social-cognitive constructs (perceived behavioural control, barrier self-efficacy, perceived organisational norms and knowledge) were measured through a self-administered online survey at baseline, 3 months and 12 months. Workplace sitting time (min/8 h day) was measured with the activPAL3 device. Single multi-level mediation models were performed for each construct at both time points. There were significant intervention effects at 3 months on perceived behavioural control, barrier self-efficacy and perceived organisational norms. Effects on perceived organisational norms were not significant at 12 months. Perceived behavioural control significantly mediated intervention effects at 3 months, accounting for a small portion of the total effect (indirect effect: -8.6 min/8 h day, 95% CI: -18.5, -3.6 min; 7.5% of total effect). At 12 months, barrier self-efficacy significantly mediated the intervention effects on workplace sitting time (indirect effect: -10.3 min/8 h day, 95% CI: -27.3, -2.2; 13.9% of total effect). No significant effects were observed for knowledge at either time point. Strategies that aim to increase workers' perceived control and self-efficacy over their sitting time may be helpful components of sedentary behaviour interventions in the workplace. However, social-cognitive factors only partially explain variation in workplace sitting reduction. Understanding the importance of other levels of influence (particularly interpersonal and environmental) for initiating and maintaining workplace sedentary behaviour change will be informative for intervention development and refinement. This study was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials register ( ACTRN12611000742976 ) on 15 July 2011.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 192 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 13%
Student > Bachelor 19 10%
Other 10 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Other 35 18%
Unknown 64 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 29 15%
Psychology 21 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 11%
Sports and Recreations 18 9%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 76 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 March 2017.
All research outputs
#2,833,802
of 24,669,628 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#963
of 2,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,940
of 316,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#29
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,669,628 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,065 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,126 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.