↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility and acceptability of reducing workplace sitting time: a qualitative study with Australian office workers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2016
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Feasibility and acceptability of reducing workplace sitting time: a qualitative study with Australian office workers
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3611-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nyssa T. Hadgraft, Charlotte L. Brakenridge, Anthony D. LaMontagne, Brianna S. Fjeldsoe, Brigid M. Lynch, David W. Dunstan, Neville Owen, Genevieve N. Healy, Sheleigh P. Lawler

Abstract

Office workers spend a large proportion of their working hours sitting. This may contribute to an increased risk of chronic disease and premature mortality. While there is growing interest in workplace interventions targeting prolonged sitting, few qualitative studies have explored workers' perceptions of reducing occupational sitting outside of an intervention context. This study explored barriers to reducing office workplace sitting, and the feasibility and acceptability of strategies targeting prolonged sitting in this context. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of 20 office workers (50 % women), including employees and managers, in Melbourne, Australia. The three organisations (two large, and one small organisation) were from retail, health and IT industries and had not implemented any formalised approaches to sitting reduction. Questions covered barriers to reducing sitting, the feasibility of potential strategies aimed at reducing sitting, and perceived effects on productivity. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Participants reported spending most (median: 7.2 h) of their working hours sitting. The nature of computer-based work and exposure to furniture designed for a seated posture were considered to be the main factors influencing sitting time. Low cost strategies, such as standing meetings and in-person communication, were identified as feasible ways to reduce sitting time and were also perceived to have potential productivity benefits. However, social norms around appropriate workplace behaviour and workload pressures were perceived to be barriers to uptake of these strategies. The cost implications of height-adjustable workstations influenced perceptions of feasibility. Managers noted the need for an evidence-based business case supporting action on prolonged sitting, particularly in the context of limited resources and competing workplace health priorities. While a number of low-cost approaches to reduce workplace sitting are perceived to be feasible and acceptable in the office workplace, factors such as work demands and the organisational social context may still act as barriers to greater uptake. Building a supportive organisational culture and raising awareness of the adverse health effects of prolonged sitting may be important for improving individual-level and organisational-level motivation for change.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Unknown 99 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 4%
Researcher 4 4%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 3%
Student > Bachelor 1 <1%
Lecturer 1 <1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 86 85%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Environmental Science 3 3%
Unspecified 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 <1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 86 85%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 15 September 2017.
All research outputs
#659,480
of 11,771,184 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#740
of 8,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,454
of 260,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#42
of 347 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,771,184 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,073 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 260,231 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 347 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.