↓ Skip to main content

Assessing and understanding sedentary behaviour in office-based working adults: a mixed-method approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 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 (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
276 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
Assessing and understanding sedentary behaviour in office-based working adults: a mixed-method approach
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3023-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clarice N. Waters, Er Pei Ling, Anne H. Y. Chu, Sheryl H. X. Ng, Audrey Chia, Yee Wei Lim, Falk Müller-Riemenschneider

Abstract

Sedentary behaviours (SB) can be characterized by low energy expenditure in a reclining position (e.g., sitting) often associated with work and transport. Prolonged SB is associated with increased risk for chronic conditions, and due to technological advances, the working population is in office settings with high occupational exposure to SB. This study aims to assess SB among office workers, as well as barriers and strategies towards reducing SB in the work setting. Using a mixed-methods approach guided by the socio-ecological framework, non-academic office workers from a professional school in a large public university were recruited. Of 180 eligible office workers, 40 enrolled and completed all assessments. Self-reported and objectively measured SB and activity levels were captured. Focus group discussion (FGD) were conducted to further understand perceptions, barriers, and strategies to reducing workplace SB. Environmental factors were systematically evaluated by trained research staff using an adapted version of the Checklist for Health Promotion Environments at Worksites (CHEW). Thematic analysis of FGD was conducted and descriptive analysis of quantitative data was performed. The sample was mostly Chinese (n = 33, 80 %) with a total of 24 (60 %) female participants. Most participants worked five days a week for about 9.5(0.5) hrs/day. Accelerometer data show that participants spend the majority of their days in sedentary activities both on workdays (76.9 %) and non-workdays (69.5 %). Self-report data confirm these findings with median sitting time of 420(180) minutes at work. From qualitative analyses, major barriers to reducing SB emerged, including the following themes: workplace social and cultural norms, personal factors, job scope, and physical building/office infrastructure. CHEW results confirm a lack of support from the physical infrastructure and information environment to reducing SB. There is high SB among office workers in this sample. We identified multiple levels of influence for prolonged occupational SB, with a particular emphasis on workplace norms and infrastructure as important barriers to reducing SB and increasing PA. A larger, representative sample of the Singaporean population is needed to confirm our findings but it seems that any intervention aimed at reducing SB in the workplace should target individual, environmental, and organizational levels.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 276 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 274 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 16%
Student > Bachelor 38 14%
Student > Postgraduate 22 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 6%
Other 47 17%
Unknown 63 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 43 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 38 14%
Sports and Recreations 24 9%
Psychology 18 7%
Social Sciences 16 6%
Other 58 21%
Unknown 79 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 02 February 2017.
All research outputs
#2,740,354
of 17,790,494 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,952
of 11,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,211
of 270,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,790,494 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,976 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 270,930 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them