211
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Workplace movement: a qualitative study on office workers’ beliefs

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon & ORCID Icon
Article: 2341695 | Received 23 May 2023, Accepted 03 Apr 2024, Published online: 01 May 2024

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.

Sedentary behaviour has been identified as one of the most consequential risks to individuals’ health and has been linked to a number of chronic conditions including metabolic dysfunction, reduction in bone mineral density, heart disease and diabetes (Hamburg et al., Citation2007; Narici et al., Citation2021; Noble et al., Citation2015; Park et al., Citation2020; World Health Organization, Citation2015). Of concern is the rising prevalence of sedentary behaviour, which is compounded by an increased use of technology and a decrease in physically demanding jobs (e.g., Jones et al., Citation2019; Kirk & Rhodes, Citation2011; Matthews et al., Citation2008; Straker & Mathiassen, Citation2009; Woessner et al., Citation2021). Previous literature investigating barriers to performing physical activity, and thus reducing sedentary behaviour, identified a lack of time as a commonly reported belief (Borowski et al., Citation2021; R. Rhodes et al., Citation2010; Salmon et al., Citation2003). Given a substantial proportion of time is spent at work, increasing the amount of general movement one performs in the workplace may help to increase people’s daily physical activity. Thus, countering any negative health consequences, such as posture (Dubey et al., Citation2019; Hemingway et al., Citation1997), circulation (Emanuele, Citation2008; Hitosugi et al., Citation2000) and vision issues (Loh & Redd, Citation2008; Mehra & Galor, Citation2020) from occupying sedentary jobs such as those within office’s (Higham, Citation2019; Mokdad et al., Citation2016; Noble et al., Citation2015; Nylander, Citation2016; World Health Organization, Citation2015). On a broader level, targeting physical movement within the workplace can also have positive effects on enhancing cognitive function leading to increased productivity (Brown et al., Citation2014; Kessler et al., Citation2003), higher engagement and job satisfaction (Arslan et al., Citation2019) and help reduce the burden on health care systems (Santos et al., Citation2023). Therefore, understanding the role that the workplace plays in influencing these health outcomes, and understanding employees’ perspectives on physical activity, is essential for mitigating these risks.

Previous literature exploring intervention strategies, such as sit-to-stand workstations, has seen positive findings in reducing sedentary behaviour (Chu et al., Citation2016; Hutcheson et al., Citation2018; Shrestha et al., Citation2019). Whilst these strategies provide valuable options for reducing sedentary behaviour, they do not necessarily increase light physical activity within the workplace. Previous research that has examined the effectiveness of interventions aiming to increase physical activity in the workplace has found mixed results (Dugdill et al., Citation2008; Malik et al., Citation2014). For example, in Malik et al. (Citation2014) systematic review of workplace-based physical activity interventions, the authors found that out of the 58 studies included, less than half (n = 22) proved effective. The authors also discussed that there was inconclusive evidence towards which components made these interventions successful due to the heterogeneity in intervention design and delivery. High attrition rates, impractical and unrealistic activity programs and disinterest could explain the equivocal findings. Thus, establishing individuals’ beliefs towards physical movement within the workplace is important before designing and implementing programs aimed at increasing movement among sedentary office workers and may help to mitigate these issues (Malik et al., Citation2014).

Theories that have been applied to the understanding of physical activity behaviour include social cognitive theory (Bandura, Citation1989; Roberts et al., Citation2010), health belief model (Becker et al., Citation1977) and health action process approach (Schwarzer & Hamilton, Citation2020). Although these theories highlight the important role of attitudes (or outcome expectancies), self-efficacy and perceived risk, they lack an explicit focus on social influences towards a behaviour. Given that most workplaces are considered social environments, it is useful to understand how social influences may affect performing physical activity within the workplace environment. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, Citation1991), in addition to attitudes and self-efficacy (akin to perceived behavioural control), offers some insight into the potential influence of social norms and important others (i.e., subjective norms) on individuals’ behaviour. However, it should be noted that broader conceptualisations of social influences, other than those prescribed by the subjective norm construct, have been advocated to understand the complexities of people’s behaviour (Hamilton & White, Citation2008, Citation2012). Broader models, such as ecological models, emphasise the impact of the social and physical environments on behaviour (Sallis et al., Citation2015), which might be important to take into consideration for stable environments such as workplaces. As such, previous literature has explored the environmental contexts that can instigate physical movement through the use of environmental cues (Jenkins et al., Citation2024). Equally important is exploring the beliefs individuals hold that drive their conscious decision-making and that may underly these behaviours. Thus, given most workplaces are social settings and the emphases on conscious processing, the TPB was adopted as the theoretical framework for the current study.

Within the TPB, intention, representing the conscious motivation to perform a behaviour, is described as the most proximal predictor of behaviour (Ajzen, Citation1991; Armitage & Conner, Citation2001; McEachan et al., Citation2011; R. E. Rhodes et al., Citation2022). Within the model, intention is determined by attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control. Attitude reflects an individual’s positive and negative evaluations of the behaviour and is thought to be determined by the outcome expectancies of the behaviour. Subjective norm is described as perceptions of pressure from others to perform a behaviour, which are underlined by the expectations of people important to them either approving or disapproving of the behaviour and the individuals’ desire to comply with these expectations. Perceived behavioural control refers to the individuals perceived level of control over the behavioural production (also believed to have a direct influence on behaviour) which is thought to arise from beliefs about the extent to which factors may inhibit or facilitate behavioural performance (Ajzen, Citation1991). This belief basis of the TPB has been used successfully to understand physical activity behaviour across a number of population groups (Conn et al., Citation2003; Hall, Citation2022; Hamilton & White, Citation2007; White et al., Citation2007) as well as inform the design of interventions to increase physical movement (R. E. Rhodes et al., Citation2019).

Research aimed at understanding the determinants underlying physical activity has predominantly taken a quantitative approach (Gourlan et al., Citation2016; R. E. Rhodes & de Bruijn, Citation2013; R. E. Rhodes et al., Citation2009). These methods do not deliver the in-depth exploration, and thus, rich understandings, that qualitative methods can provide (Thomas et al., Citation2015). Studies that have used a qualitative approach to exploring influencers of physical activity have found social and physical environmental factors, such as social support, availability and accessibility of resources; and personal factors, such as physical and psychological wellbeing, as well as attitudes, to impact behaviour (Huijg et al., Citation2015; Kosteli et al., Citation2016; Ryde et al., Citation2020; Wendel‐Vos et al., Citation2007). Other studies that have explored individuals’ beliefs towards performing physical activity consistently report beliefs such as improved productivity, increased psychological health and reduced sick leave as benefits of being physically active during the workday, as well as barriers such as workload, job requirements and workplace culture (Allender et al., Citation2006; Cole et al., Citation2015; Deliens et al., Citation2015; Huijg et al., Citation2015; Kosteli et al., Citation2016; Ryde et al., Citation2020; Wendel‐Vos et al., Citation2007).

Niven and Hu (Citation2018) used a qualitative approach following a TPB design to explore the attitudes and beliefs towards reducing sitting in the workplace. Their belief elicitation study was conducted on 105 commercial office workers. The authors used an online questionnaire approach to address the advantages, disadvantages, normative beliefs, feasibility and barriers towards reducing sitting in the workplace. Participants highlighted aspects such as better health as the most prominent advantage and impacts to work productivity as a disadvantage. The results also revealed a common belief that management would disapprove of a decrease in sitting time, and that a better physical work environment would be conducive to reducing sedentary behaviour (Niven & Hu, Citation2018). Similarly, Brierley et al. (Citation2021) conducted semi-structured interviews using a TPB structure. The authors interviewed 10 office-based police staff in the United Kingdom on their attitudes and beliefs around reducing their sedentary behaviour within the workday. Consistent with previous literature, their findings revealed common themes around work-related tasks being seated, social norm influences of being sedentary and impact on productivity. Although these findings are helpful in understanding the motivations of office workers in reducing sedentary behaviour, they may not be generalisable given recent changes in contemporary society, with more people working from a range of environments. Research suggests there are many differences between a commercial office and home office such as air quality (Sarnosky et al., Citation2021), telecommunication requirements (Savić, Citation2020) and impacts on well-being (Xiao et al., Citation2021). Thus, exploring the attitudes and beliefs of office workers in a variety of workplace settings affords the identification of any differences and similarities, thereby allowing greater scope of findings which can better inform future behaviour change programs.

Objective

To date, there has been limited qualitative research conducted on the perspectives of sedentary office workers in various work environments regarding their activity levels within the workplace using the TPB as a framework. This knowledge gap represents a missed opportunity to address critical issues that impact both employee wellbeing and organisational performance. Gaining knowledge of the subjective experience of the target population is important for understanding how to improve physical activity habits in the workday, thereby reducing sedentary behaviour often afforded by the nature of the job. Also, as employees now navigate flexible work arrangements between commercial offices, home offices, or a combination of the two, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic (Workplace Gender Equality Agency, Citation2021), the dynamics of the work environment have evolved. These changes in environments highlight the importance of understanding the diverse attitudes and beliefs that individuals hold across these varied work contexts. As health habits are best formed under stable conditions, an understanding of similarities and differences across varied work environments can inform the development of future habit-based behaviour change programs that can be tailored to specific environments. To address these issues, the current study aims to qualitatively explore and identify, using a TPB belief-based approach, the behavioural, normative and control beliefs of sedentary office workers working from either a commercial office, home office, or a combination towards performing more physical movement within a workday.

Method

Participants

Participants were a community sample recruited via purposive sampling using social media platforms, university broadcast emails and first-year student research pool. The first-year research participant pool is a database for researchers to advertise research studies and is accessed by first-year undergraduate students. This was used as a recruitment tool as it is common for students to partake in university studies alongside full-time employment (Australian Bureau of Statistics, Citation2020). Study advertisements included a link to an online questionnaire where interested parties could provide their demographic data and contact details to be contacted via email to arrange the interview at the convenience of the participant. Participants were included if they were aged 18 years or older; self-described as having a highly sedentary job (sit for at least 75% of their working day (Phipps et al., Citation2022); and worked full time from either a commercial office, home office, or had a flexible work arrangement working from a combination of home and commercial office. Participants were excluded if they had any medical conditions that precluded them from engaging in physical activity, or if they had experienced workplace disruptions in the past two weeks due to restrictions around COVID-19 laws. Seventy-two people registered to participate by completing demographic questions and providing contact data. Of these 72, 19 did not respond to the follow-up email and 10 were excluded due to not meeting the study criteria.

The sample used for the analysis consisted of 43 adults, and participant characteristics are reported in . Participants provided informed consent upon online registration of their interest to participate, with verbal consent reobtained prior to the interviews. Participants were offered an AU$30 department store gift voucher as remuneration for their time. No prior relationships were knowingly established between participants and author KJ who conducted the interviews. Full ethical approval was granted by the Griffith University Human Ethics Committee (GU:401/2020).

Table 1. Participant characteristics.

Design and procedure

Interviews were conducted from March 2020 through to May 2021 in Southeast Queensland, Australia, in a residential setting with no other researchers or nonparticipants present. Participants were also asked about the stability of their workplace environment with respect to changes caused by COVID-19. The current study was guided by the COREQ (Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research) checklist (Tong et al., Citation2007). Interviews followed a semi-structured interview guide (Appendix B) consisting of open-ended questions around individuals’ behavioural, normative and control beliefs towards engaging in physical activity within the workplace environment. Physical activity was defined as any bodily movement that requires one to move from their desk as part of normal daily tasks (Armstrong et al., Citation1999). The interview guide was developed based on the TPB guidelines (Ajzen, Citation1991) as well as prior research (Hamilton & White, Citation2010), with feedback on question clarity received from external researchers with expertise in exercise science, psychology theory and behaviour change. The length of interviews ranged between 23 and 70 minutes, with the average taking 43 min. Forty-two of the interviews were conducted over the phone and recorded using TapeACall software and one interview was conducted using Microsoft Teams software due to a hearing impairment. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim for data analysis. Participants were notified of the recording prior to the interview, and consent to participate was obtained both upon registration and verbally at the beginning of the interview. All interviews were conducted by author KJ, a female PhD candidate with honours level experience and post-graduate training in qualitative research. Participants were notified that the study was part of a larger project and would be used to form part of author KJ’s PhD thesis. KJ’s research is in behavioural science specialising in health psychology.

Data analysis

Data analysis was conducted using theoretical thematic analysis in NVivo qualitative analysis software (Braun & Clarke, Citation2006, Citation2013; Joffe & Yardley, Citation2004). Data was collected, coded and analysed using an iterative process, where recruitment ceased when the data no longer added anything new to the overall analysis. Transcripts were not provided to participants for review or comment, and participants did not provide feedback on the findings. Broad categories were identified and grouped together based on the research questions. These categories were then refined into common themes within the data. Initial data coding was conducted by author KJ and to ensure coding stability, author JB reviewed the codes and deidentified interview transcripts, and author KH was consulted for any inconsistencies in coding. Themes were reviewed and refined by authors KJ, JB and KH.

Results

Discussions about moving in the workplace were structured around behavioural beliefs, normative beliefs and control beliefs. The categories that emerged throughout the interviews appeared to be consistent between groups and thus the most salient themes are presented below (and summarised in Appendix A) around the TPB constructs with participant quotes, along with participant number, sex, age in years and workplace setting (P#, M/F, age, workplace).

Behavioural beliefs: advantages and disadvantages

Advantages

When asked what participants considered as the advantages of moving during the day, across all three groups, participants responded with statements around posture like “I get up and stretch pretty often so I don’t get stiff” (P21, M, 25, commercial office) and “Yes, I tend to seize up if I don’t move enough and a tend to expand or my clothes shrink very quick” (P31, F, 57, home office). Following this, advantages identified by both the home office and combination of commercial/home office were consistent in that it helped with focus and productivity “It helps more with the recentering and refocusing on the task” (P36, M, 25, home office); it was energising “Mentally, you feel, you know, a little bit more energised” (P15, F, 57, combination of commercial/home office); that they considered it healthy “I think just being more healthy” (P34, F, 40, home office); and that it helped to increase mood while at work “It helps in terms of my wellbeing. I feel a lot calmer and, you know, not anxious” (P9, F, 29, combination of commercial/home office). For the commercial office group, responses in order of most to least common were: its energising “You just feel, you know, more energised” (P8, F, 50, commercial office); increases mood “It brings your mood up” (P1, F, 34, commercial office); helps with focus and productivity “It increases productivity” (P1, F, 34, commercial office); its healthy “It increase your health” (P39, M, 39, commercial office); good for getting sunlight “Particularly if I go outside, get a bit of sunlight” (P35, M, 31, commercial office); and helps for social engagement “It’s also because on the way there you’re going with colleagues and you’re chatting and that helps pass the time as well” (P39, M, 39, commercial office).

Positive experiences

Along with advantages, participants were asked to discuss any positive experiences they had experienced as a response to moving during the day. The most common responses across all three groups was that moving during the day made them feel happier and gave them a positive mood “It makes you a lot happier and more vibrant if you move” (P8, F, 50, commercial office), “Keeps your mood up, and general positivity” (P2, M, 28, home office). Following this, both the home office and combination of commercial/home office groups reported experiences of feeling relaxed or stress relief “It’s probably relieves stress as well” (P31, F, 57, home office); feelings of being energised “I’m more energised to be able to continue the task” (P15, F, 57, combination of commercial/home office); a sense of wellbeing “Yea general sense of well-being overall” (P31, F, 57, home office); and pain relief “So it kind of relieves pain” (P5, F, 41, combination of commercial/home office). Similar to these, the commercial office group reported feelings of being energised “I feel more energized” (P28, F, 23, commercial office) along with experiences of feeling relaxed and a relief from stress “you feel a bit more relaxed when you get away from the computer screen and wander around for a bit” (P30, F, 26, commercial office).

Disadvantages

Participants were asked if there were any disadvantages to moving during the day. Of the disadvantages identified, all three groups reported disruptions to productivity “Your workflow being interrupted” (P1, F, 34, commercial office), “Breaking concentration is probably the primary one” (P25, M, 45, home office), followed by being perceived as not working “I think one of the disadvantages of getting up or wanting to, is that people may feel that you’re not giving your work your all, because if you’re not at your desk, with your head in those spreadsheets, they’re not getting done. I think it can potentially reflect poorly to management on performance” (P19, F, 35, combination of commercial/home office). No disadvantage was also a common response across all three groups.

Negative experiences

Along with disadvantages, participants were asked if they could describe any negative experiences associated with moving during the day. The most common response across all three groups was that they did not have any negative experiences as a result from moving while at work. However, for those in the commercial office group who could identify having a negative experience, expressions of stress and frustration were commonly reported “Probably just workload related stress” (P32, F, 32, commercial office). For both the home office and combination of commercial/home office groups, feelings of guilt and self-loathing “I kind of feel really guilty, like I don’t deserve to be paid to do this job” (P6, F, 23, combination of commercial/home office); stress and frustration “It can be frustrating, I guess sometimes” (P17, M, 35, combination of commercial/home office); and highlights body pains “Sometimes when I start moving my knee hurts, so it might bring out, like, different niggles in your body” (P9, F, 29, combination of commercial/home office), where the next most common responses. One participant in the combination of commercial/home office group also reported feelings of loneliness “If I do leave my desk at home, it’s literally just me. So the disadvantage would be like, I feel really lonely” (P6, F, 23, combination of commercial/home office).

Normative beliefs: approval and disapproval

Approval

When participants were asked who would approve of them moving more during the working day, both the home office and a combination of commercial/home office groups reported friends and family being the top supporters “I think yes but you know friends and family would be happy about you know just get away from that computer” (P3, F, 62, home office). This was followed by people at work which entailed colleagues at the same level as themselves “I’m just thinking about some of my colleagues. I know that quite a few of them have also had back injuries and things like that just from sitting down. So, if I was like, oh, I’m just getting up, I’m walking around and stretching a little bit, they would approve of that” (P14, F, 29, home office), followed by their boss or managers “My boss, definitely” (P13, F, 38, home office). For the combination of commercial/home office group, participants also identified their managers and colleagues. These findings were similar to the commercial office group who identified people at work: bosses and managers “My boss has been very big on exercise and taking time to do that” (P24, F, 26, commercial office); colleagues at the same level; and people who report to them; with one participant identifying customers “I guess customers for what it’s worth” (P21, M, 25, commercial office). This was then followed by friends and family. For all three groups, health professionals was reported as a group who they believed would approve of their moving during the day “Probably my doctor” (P8, F, 50, commercial office), and for home office and combination of commercial/home office groups, pets were also discussed “The dog is certainly happier when I move” (P3, F, 62, home office), “My cat loves it when I open up my door” (P15, F, 57, combination of commercial/home office). For the commercial office group, local businesses were also thought to be approving of moving more during the workday “The coffee van up the road” (P8, F, 50, commercial office).

Disapproval

When asked who might disapprove of moving more, the most common response across all groups was “I can’t think of anyone” (P2, M, 28, home office). Of the participants that did identify people they thought might disapprove, both the commercial office and home office groups reported their boss “Oh yeah definitely the people that want me to reach my KPI’s [key performance indicators] and want me to be their little drone that does all their work for them. So upper management, 100% yes” (P37, M, 20, commercial office), followed by colleagues “I think the only thing would be if it impacted on the amount of work I got done. So yeah students and colleges might” (P3, F, 62, home office). This was reversed in the combination of commercial/home office group who reported colleagues first followed by their boss. One person in the home office group also reported people who report to them “I definitely my superior and also my subordinate” (P40, M, 38, home office). Following this, people in the home office group identified pets as the next most common response “Probably just my dog who gets really excited every time I go to the door and then I don’t let her out and she just sulks” (P2, M, 28, home office), with one person in the combination of commercial/home office suggesting neighbours might disapprove if music was played too loud “Maybe my neighbours if I have, like, a loud exercise thing” (P9, F, 29, combination of commercial/home office).

Others moving more

When asked who was trying to move more during the workday, across all three groups, the most common response was people at work including colleagues at the same level, followed by bosses “My manager that’s I know a goal that she wanted to do because feels she’s always stuck at her desk, she said that before. I think my other colleagues as well” (P28, F, 23, commercial office). In the commercial office and home office groups, people also identified the staff who reported to them “My boss and also my subordinates” (P40, M, 38, home office) with one person in the home office group also identifying their clients “I do know lots of people who would benefit from moving more who are my clients” (P31, F, 57, home office). The next most common response across all three groups included friends and family “My sister, who’s also working at home, she is trying to move more and my husband” (P13, F, 38, home office), followed by the commercial office and home office groups identifying health professionals “I followed a couple of people online who are exercise a lot and they talk about it another group could be fitness professionals or health professionals” (P25, M, 45, home office). Across all the groups, a substantial number of participants could not identify anyone.

Others trying to not move more

Across all three groups most people could not identify anyone, “I think generally people are looking for opportunities to move so they are not staying in one spot” (P38, M, 44, commercial office). For the participants who could identify someone, friends and family were the most frequent responses. For the commercial office and home office groups, colleagues at the same level were the next most common responses “It would be some of the other colleagues who are trying to just maybe focus on work” (P34, F, 40, home office). One participant in the home office group also identified their clients, and one person in the combination of commercial/home office said themselves “Well probably me because I’m just work my 7 hours and leave” (P26, F, 52, combination of commercial/home office).

Control beliefs: facilitating and inhibiting factors

Facilitating factors

When asked what factors could help people move more during their workday, across all three groups the most common response was an office set up which mainly related to distances between resources “Having things based far apart like the car park is a walk. Um and even the bathroom is being far away” (P9, F, 29, combination of commercial/home office). The commercial office group also reported job tasks “I do have to walk around the whole store” (P21, M, 25, commercial office), the home office group identified attending to pets “Having the dog means that I need to take him out” (P3, F, 62, home office), and the combination of commercial/home office group reported the relaxed home environment “It’s a more casual environment being at home. So, there’s a lot more flexibility in terms of how you position yourself and posture and things like that at home course. Yeah, it’s more casual environment” (P17, M, 35, combination of commercial/home office), as the second highest. Across all three groups, the third most common response was related to environmental factors. These related to external aspects such as being located in the city, the building having a gym, or having exercise equipment close at hand. For the home office and combination of commercial/home office groups, the next most common response related to office set up and technology “Having my device and my phone mobile and moveable” (P4, F, 38, combination of commercial/home office). For the commercial office group, the remainder of responses included the amount of water participants consumed resulting in bathroom breaks; getting up to speak to other staff; and planning activities into their day: “I try and plan and activities that kind of are more active once a week” (P28, F, 23, commercial office). For the home office group, the remainder of responses were being in a relaxed home environment; water consumption resulting in bathroom breaks; and having breaks between meetings. For the combination of commercial/home office, the remainder of responses included social acceptance: “Just the acceptance of it and more of your colleagues doing it lends itself to you doing it without a problem” (P26, F, 52, combination of commercial/home office); and job tasks: “The nature of my job means that it’s not only sitting at my desk and looking at my computer, but it is going between, buildings and so forth” (P12, M, 64, combination of commercial/home office).

Inhibiting factors

The most salient inhibiting factor identified by participants across all three groups was job restrictions “The desk have to be constantly manned” (P23, F, 33, commercial office). Lack of motivation “Not been disciplined to do it” (P3, F, 62, home office) and poor office set up “The couch and coffee table is meant for leisure, not for working” (P6, F, 41, combination of commercial/home office) were also common responses for the home office and combination of commercial/home office groups, with poor office set up relating to size being the second highest response in the commercial office group “I wish I could measure this office for you because it’s definitely not big” (P8, F, 50, commercial office). For the commercial office and combination of commercial/home office groups, workplace culture was the next most common response “The kind of culture that lives within our company” (P28, F, 23, commercial office). The remaining inhibiting factors identified by the commercial office group were restrictive work clothing, online platforms for meetings resulting in no walking to meeting rooms and feeling grounded while seated. The home office group also discussed online platforms as being an inhibiting factor to moving during the day, with one participant unable to name any inhibiting factors. The combination of commercial/home office group further identified online platforms; restricting office clothing; and not having social networks at home as inhibitors to workplace movement, with two participants unable to identify any barriers.

Discussion

Limited research exists that qualitatively explores the beliefs of office workers across varied work environments towards moving more within the workplace. Overall, current findings showed converging evidence across participants despite workplace setting on the advantages of physical movement throughout the workday, and an acknowledgement of the health consequences of sedentary behaviour. Specifically, and consistent with previous research (Ryde et al., Citation2020), participants discussed that getting up and moving helped to relieve stress and tension in the body, as well as helped with focus and ability to process information. Participants also discussed that taking short breaks from sitting at the desk provided a renewal of energy and generally increased their mood. Despite the noted advantages, disadvantages and negative experiences were also discussed, the most salient across all three groups being a disruption to productivity and, as a consequence, feelings of guilt. In their paper, Cole et al. (Citation2015) reported similar findings in that participants discussed feeling guilty for moving during paid work time when their work was desk based. This is consistent with the participants in the current study as a common disadvantage across all groups related to being perceived as not working. This belief was also addressed in previous research where participants reported feeling disruptive and awkward when they moved around within the office space (Mackenzie et al., Citation2019; Ojo et al., Citation2019).

Interestingly, participants in the current study reported mixed beliefs around the social pressures of moving during the workday (i.e., the perception that significant others would approve or disapprove of the behaviour). Managers, or bosses, were identified as being both supportive and disapproving of workplace movement. These findings are similar to those reported in previous studies (Hamilton & White, Citation2010). The conceptualisation of the subjective norm construct within the TPB framework could explain this mixture of findings. Previous research has shown attitudinal ambivalence to weaken the attitude-intention-behaviour relationship (Sparks et al., Citation2001), which might also be evident of social norm ambivalence, although further research is needed, especially for behaviours that occur within social environments. Furthermore, research exploring the social influences within this context may benefit from applying a broader framework, such as ecological models (Sallis et al., Citation2015), to better capture the effect of different levels of the social and environmental context on behaviour. Nevertheless, future interventions designed to use social messaging should focus on highlighting supportive messages from management and dispelling beliefs of disapproval about the utility of physical movement for cognitive function in the workplace.

Further, participants who identified their boss or manager as an “individual” were more inclined to talk about them being supportive of their movement, while those who discussed management as a group or authoritative body were more likely to perceive them as being disapproving. This finding lends to the psychology around group stereotypes, where particular characteristics are amalgamated to form an identity of out-group members as opposed to in-group members being individualised (Cooley & Payne, Citation2019). This perceived disapproval, along with the guilt of being perceived as not working, suggests that the role of social norms around physical activity in the workplace might be important to consider to get people to move more during the workday. Indeed, in the current study, workplace culture was discussed as a common inhibiting belief workers held towards moving more. Previous literature has found workplace culture to influence people moving more during the workday, with suggestions that organisations view the actual work being done (so not including time to move more) as billable time, have a preference for online as opposed to in-person communication, and lack behavioural modelling from senior staff (Flint et al., Citation2017; Morris et al., Citation2018; Such & Mutrie, Citation2017). Such workplace culture could perpetuate employee feelings of discomfort and reluctance to move more during the workday, even if it is at the determinant of workers’ health.

Job restrictions, such as the nature of the job being sedentary, high workloads and poor office set up, were other common inhibiting factors discussed. Although similar topics were discussed across all groups, participants who worked from a home office and those in the combination of commercial/home office group, discussed a relaxed home environment as a significant facilitating factor. Having a relaxed home environment meant that participants did not feel pressures to remain at their desks and had the freedom to move without causing distractions to others. Supporting this, those working from a commercial office discussed how moving during the day might cause disruptions to others. A social norms perspective, which suggests people make social comparisons and assumptions based on perceptions of what is the expected or accepted way to behave in a given setting (Dempsey et al., Citation2018), might explain these findings. Such perceptions may be valid or invalid, and assumptions that are derived may actually be misperceptions of the reality of the situation. In the current study, therefore, participants may be making false assumptions of their movement as being distracting to others. Such false beliefs are important for interventionalists to consider when aiming to increase physical movement within the workplace and should endeavour to diminish these misperceptions through providing corrective feedback (Dempsey et al., Citation2018).

Complementing the beliefs about barriers, when discussing facilitators that may help to increase movement during the workday, office layout (such as the distance between resources) was a key belief held. Participants working from a commercial office discussed how they could choose to use bathrooms further away from their desks or leave their snacks in the kitchen rather than at their desk, to increase movement. Those working from a home office, however, discussed how these strategies would only require small amounts of extra movement. Participants working from a home office or a combination of commercial/home office, often due to a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, talked about how small their working space was in comparison to working in commercial offices. Similar themes have been addressed in previous research using facilities within the environment to instigate movement (Brakenridge et al., Citation2018; Candido et al., Citation2019; Flint et al., Citation2017; Hadgraft et al., Citation2017; Hamilton et al., Citation2019; Jancey et al., Citation2016; Löffler et al., Citation2015). These findings highlight an opportunity for organisations to utilise choice architecture when designing the layouts of office floor plans. Designing layouts with physical movement in mind can highlight to employees the organisations' support for increasing movement during the workday (Becher & Dollard, Citation2016; Eisenberger et al., Citation1986). Although such strategies may not assist those working from an established home office, participants did discuss using the smaller home working space to incorporate small chores within their workday, such as cleaning and laundry. Practical implications from these discussions highlighted the value of using the physical environment (e.g., walking to the kitchen and bathrooms or smaller spaces), the social environment (e.g., getting up to talk to other people both personal and work-related) and taking active breaks (e.g., completing both work-related and non-work-related tasks) to instigate movement. These findings highlight the value of socio-ecological models.

Strengths of the current study include the exploration of workers’ beliefs of physical movement in the workplace using a theory-based approach, recruitment of a sample of sedentary office workers, and examination across varied workplace environments. The benefit of using a theory-based approach to a qualitative exploration is that it provides a structured approach to understanding concepts discussed, aiding in the identification of patterns and themes within the data (Hissa & Timulak, Citation2020). Furthermore, by using a well-established theoretical framework, researchers can draw on a dearth of knowledge to gain a deeper understanding of the relationships within the data (Hissa & Timulak, Citation2020). The strength of exploring different working environments is particularly important given contemporary working situations as a response to the COVID-19 global pandemic. As previous research indicates there are numerous differences between commercial and home environments (Sarnosky et al., Citation2021; Savić, Citation2020; Xiao et al., Citation2021), understanding the differences in attitudes and beliefs can increase the generalisability of the findings. This study, however, is not without its limitations. Interviews were conducted between March 2020 and May 2021 during the COVID-19 global pandemic, with most participants residing in Queensland, Australia. During this time, there were numerous disruptions to both the home and commercial workplace environments, such as social distancing restrictions precluding gatherings of more than 10 people. Despite attempting to account for disruptions to workplace environments through the exclusion criteria, this study did not explore lifestyle changes outside of the workplace, for example changes to family circumstances such as home schooling. Such changes may have influenced participant responses as undertaking extra responsibilities as a result of the pandemic, for example, may have induced extra stress and thus minimising the importance of physical movement (Neill et al., Citation2020; Phillipou et al., Citation2020; Ruissen et al., Citation2021; Shah et al., Citation2021). Future studies should build on these findings in times of greater workplace stability. Furthermore, the interview questions and analysis were guided by a TPB framework, and thus, findings constrained to using the model to guide the theoretical thematic analysis. Future research could extend on current findings by asking broader open-ended questions and using an inductive thematic analysis approach to gain further understandings of the influences of occupational physical activity and occupational sedentary behaviour within the workplace.

In conclusion, current findings highlight the importance of workplace social climate to people’s physical movement in the workplace. Thus, encouraging organisations to support movement from a top-down approach, and providing corrective feedback regarding peers perceptions towards moving while in the office, might prove useful to increase workplace movement. This could take the form of persuasive communications on the advantages of moving during the day and using choice architecture to design office layouts that facilitate movement.

Author contributions

Authors KJ, JB and KH contributed to the conception, design, data-collection, analysis, and writing of the manuscript; All authors participated in the drafting and finalisation of the manuscript.

Credit statement

Kailas Jenkins: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing, Project Administration.

Jena Buchan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing, Supervision.

Ryan Rhodes: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing, Supervision.

Kyra Hamilton: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing, Supervision, Resources, Project Administration.

Data sharing

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, KJ. The data are not publicly available due to restrictions (e.g., their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

No funding to declare. Kailas Jenkins PhD is supported by the Australian Governments Research Training Program.

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  • Allender, S., Cowburn, G., & Foster, C. (2006). Understanding participation in sport and physical activity among children and adults: A review of qualitative studies. Health Education Research, 21(6), 826–835. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyl063
  • Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta‐analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939
  • Armstrong, T., Bauman, A., & Davies, J. (1999). Physical activity patterns of Australian adults. Results of the 1999 national physical activity survey. http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442454841
  • Arslan, S. S., Alemdaroğlu, İ., Karaduman, A. A., & Yilmaz, Ö. T. (2019). The effects of physical activity on sleep quality, job satisfaction, and quality of life in office workers. Work, 63(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-192902
  • Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2020). Education and Work, Australia. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/education-and-work-australia/may-2020#engagement-in-employment-and-or-education
  • Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.44.9.1175
  • Becher, H., & Dollard, M. (2016). Psychosocial safety climate and better productivity in Australian workplaces: Costs, productivity, presenteeism, absenteeism. Safe Work Australia, University of South Australia.
  • Becker, M. H., Haefner, D. P., Kasl, S. V., Kirscht, J. P., Maiman, L. A., & Rosenstock, I. M. (1977). Selected psychosocial models and correlates of individual health-related behaviors. Medical Care, 15(5), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-197705001-00005
  • Borowski, S., Savla, J., & Zvonkovic, A. M. (2021). Impact of flexible work arrangements, self-efficacy, and barriers on daily physical activity among university staff. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 18(5), 594–602. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2020-0099
  • Brakenridge, C. L., Healy, G. N., Hadgraft, N. T., Young, D. C., & Fjeldsoe, B. S. (2018). Australian employee perceptions of an organizational-level intervention to reduce sitting. Health Promotion International, 33(6), 968–979. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dax037
  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage.
  • Brierley, M. L., Smith, L. R., Bailey, D. P., Every, S. A., Staines, T. A., & Chater, A. M. (2021). Perceived influences on reducing prolonged sitting in police staff: A qualitative investigation using the theoretical domains framework and COM-B model. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12019-6
  • Brown, H. E., Burton, N., Gilson, N. D., & Brown, W. (2014). Measuring presenteeism: Which questionnaire to use in physical activity research? Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 11(2), 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2011-0307
  • Candido, C., Thomas, L., Haddad, S., Zhang, F., Mackey, M., & Ye, W. (2019). Designing activity-based workspaces: Satisfaction, productivity and physical activity. Building Research & Information, 47(3), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2018.1476372
  • Chu, A. H., Ng, S. H., Tan, C. S., Win, A., Koh, D., & Müller‐Riemenschneider, F. (2016). A systematic review and meta‐analysis of workplace intervention strategies to reduce sedentary time in white‐collar workers. Obesity Reviews, 17(5), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12388
  • Cole, J. A., Tully, M. A., & Cupples, M. E. (2015). “They should stay at their desk until the work’s done”: A qualitative study examining perceptions of sedentary behaviour in a desk-based occupational setting. BMC Research Notes, 8(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1670-2
  • Conn, V. S., Tripp‐Reimer, T., & Maas, M. L. (2003). Older women and exercise: Theory of planned behavior beliefs. Public Health Nursing, 20(2), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1446.2003.20209.x
  • Cooley, E., & Payne, B. K. (2019). A group is more than the average of its parts: Why existing stereotypes are applied more to the same individuals when viewed in groups than when viewed alone. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(5), 673–687. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218756494
  • Deliens, T., Deforche, B., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Clarys, P. (2015). Determinants of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in university students: A qualitative study using focus group discussions. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1553-4
  • Dempsey, R. C., McAlaney, J., & Bewick, B. M. (2018). A critical appraisal of the social norms approach as an interventional strategy for health-related behavior and attitude change. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2180. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02180
  • Dubey, N., Dubey, G., Tripathi, H., & Naqvi, Z. (2019). Ergonomics for desk job workers-an overview. International Journal of Health Sciences and Research, 9(7), 257–266.
  • Dugdill, L., Brettle, A., Hulme, C., McCluskey, S., & Long, A. (2008). Workplace physical activity interventions: A systematic review. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 1(1), 20–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538350810865578
  • Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
  • Emanuele, P. (2008). Deep vein thrombosis. Aaohn Journal, 56(9), 389–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/216507990805600904
  • Flint, S. W., Crank, H., Tew, G., & Till, S. (2017). “It’s not an obvious issue, is it?’’ Office-based employees’ perceptions of prolonged sitting at work a qualitative study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 59(12), 1161–1165. https://doi.org/10.1097/jom.0000000000001130
  • Gourlan, M., Bernard, P., Bortolon, C., Romain, A. J., Lareyre, O., Carayol, M., Ninot, G., & Boiché, J. (2016). Efficacy of theory-based interventions to promote physical activity. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Health Psychology Review, 10(1), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2014.981777
  • Hadgraft, N. T., Willenberg, L., LaMontagne, A. D., Malkoski, K., Dunstan, D. W., Healy, G. N., Moodie, M., Eakin, E. G., Owen, N., & Lawler, S. P. (2017). Reducing occupational sitting: Workers’ perspectives on participation in a multi-component intervention. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 14(1), 73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0530-y
  • Hall, D. (2022). Salient beliefs of obese individuals: A qualitative study based on the theory of planned behavior. University of Phoenix.
  • Hamburg, N. M., McMackin, C. J., Huang, A. L., Shenouda, S. M., Widlansky, M. E., Schulz, E., Gokce, N., Ruderman, N. B., Keaney, J. F., Jr., & Vita, J. A. (2007). Physical inactivity rapidly induces insulin resistance and microvascular dysfunction in healthy volunteers. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, 27(12), 2650–2656. https://doi.org/10.1161/ATVBAHA.107.153288
  • Hamilton, K., Fraser, E., & Hannan, T. (2019). Habit-based workplace physical activity intervention: A pilot study. Occupational Medicine, 69(7), 471–474. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqz119
  • Hamilton, K., & White, K. (2007). Adolescents and physical activity: The role of attitudinal, normative and control beliefs. Psychology Making an Impact: Proceedings of the 42nd Conference of the Australian Psychological Society, Brisbane, Australia.
  • Hamilton, K., & White, K. (2008). Extending the theory of planned behavior: The role of self and social influences in predicting adolescent regular moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30(1), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.30.1.56
  • Hamilton, K., & White, K. M. (2010). Identifying parents’ perceptions about physical activity: A qualitative exploration of salient behavioural, normative and control beliefs among mothers and fathers of young children. Journal of Health Psychology, 15(8), 1157–1169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105310364176
  • Hamilton, K., & White, K. M. (2012). Social influences and the physical activity intentions of parents of young-children families: An extended theory of planned behavior approach. Journal of Family Issues, 33(10), 1351–1372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x12437151
  • Hemingway, H., Shipley, M. J., Stansfeld, S., & Marmot, M. (1997). Sickness absence from back pain, psychosocial work characteristics and employment grade among office workers. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 23(2), 121–129. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.189
  • Higham, W. (2019). The work colleague of the future a report on the long-term health of office workers. Report Commissioned by Fellowes. Retrieved October 30, 2020, from https://assets.fellowes.com/skins/fellowes/responsive/gb/en/resources/workcolleague-of-the-future/download/WCOF_Report_EU.pdf
  • Hissa, J., & Timulak, L. (2020). Theoretically informed qualitative psychotherapy research: A primer. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 20(3), 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12301
  • Hitosugi, M., Niwa, M., & Takatsu, A. (2000). Rheologic changes in venous blood during prolonged sitting. Thrombosis Research, 100(5), 409–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0049-3848(00)00348-0
  • Huijg, J. M., van der Zouwe, N., Crone, M. R., Verheijden, M. W., Middelkoop, B. J., & Gebhardt, W. A. (2015). Factors influencing the introduction of physical activity interventions in primary health care: A qualitative study. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 22(3), 404–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-014-9411-9
  • Hutcheson, A. K., Piazza, A. J., & Knowlden, A. P. (2018). Work site-based environmental interventions to reduce sedentary behavior: A systematic review. American Journal of Health Promotion, 32(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117116674681
  • Jancey, J. M., McGann, S., Creagh, R., Blackford, K. D., Howat, P., & Tye, M. (2016). Workplace building design and office-based workers’ activity: A study of a natural experiment. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 40(1), 78–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12464
  • Jenkins, K., Buchan, J., Rhodes, R. E., & Hamilton, K. (2024). Exploring environmental cues to instigate physical movement in the workplace. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, 12(1), 2323433. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2024.2323433
  • Joffe, H., & Yardley, L. (2004). Content and thematic analysis. In D. F. Marks & L. Yardley (Eds.), Research methods for clinical and health psychology (pp. 56–68). SAGE Publications.
  • Jones, R., Credeur, D. P., & McCoy, S. M. (2019). Too much workplace sitting: A brief historical perspective. International Journal of Exercise Science, 12(2), 777.
  • Kessler, R. C., Barber, C., Beck, A., Berglund, P., Cleary, P. D., McKenas, D., Pronk, N., Simon, G., Stang, P., Ustun, T. B., & Wang, P. (2003). The world health organization health and work performance questionnaire (HPQ). Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 45(2), 156–174. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.jom.0000052967.43131.51
  • Kirk, M. A., & Rhodes, R. E. (2011). Occupation correlates of adults’ participation in leisure-time physical activity: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40(4), 476–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.12.015
  • Kosteli, M.-C., Williams, S. E., & Cumming, J. (2016). Investigating the psychosocial determinants of physical activity in older adults: A qualitative approach. Psychology & Health, 31(6), 730–749. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2016.1143943
  • Löffler, D., Wallmann-Sperlich, B., Wan, J., Knött, J., Vogel, A., & Hurtienne, J. (2015). Office ergonomics driven by contextual design. Ergonomics in Design, 23(3), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1064804615585409
  • Loh, K., & Redd, S. (2008). Understanding and preventing computer vision syndrome. Malaysian Family Physician, 3(3), 128. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25606136
  • Mackenzie, K., Such, E., Norman, P., & Goyder, E. (2019). Sitting less at work: A qualitative study of barriers and enablers in organisations of different size and sector. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7148-8
  • Malik, S. H., Blake, H., & Suggs, L. S. (2014). A systematic review of workplace health promotion interventions for increasing physical activity. British Journal of Health Psychology, 19(1), 149–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12052
  • Matthews, C. E., Chen, K. Y., Freedson, P. S., Buchowski, M. S., Beech, B. M., Pate, R. R., & Troiano, R. P. (2008). Amount of time spent in sedentary behaviors in the United States, 2003–2004. American Journal of Epidemiology, 167(7), 875–881. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwm390
  • McEachan, R. R. C., Conner, M., Taylor, N. J., & Lawton, R. J. (2011). Prospective prediction of health-related behaviours with the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5(2), 97–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2010.521684
  • Mehra, D., & Galor, A. (2020). Digital screen use and dry eye: A review. The Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology, 9(6), 491–497. https://doi.org/10.1097/APO.0000000000000328
  • Mokdad, A. H., Forouzanfar, M. H., Daoud, F., Mokdad, A. A., El Bcheraoui, C., Moradi-Lakeh, M., Kyu, H. H., Barber, R. M., Wagner, J., Cercy, K., Kravitz, H., Coggeshall, M., Chew, A., O’Rourke, K. F., Steiner, C., Tuffaha, M., Charara, R., Al-Ghamdi, E. A., Adi, Y., … Murray, C. J. L. (2016). Global burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors for young people’s health during 1990–2013: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2013. The Lancet, 387(10036), 2383–2401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00648-6
  • Morris, A., Murphy, R., Shepherd, S., & Graves, L. (2018). Multi-stakeholder perspectives of factors that influence contact centre call agents’ workplace physical activity and sedentary behaviour. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), 1484. Article 1484. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071484
  • Narici, M., Vito, G. D., Franchi, M., Paoli, A., Moro, T., Marcolin, G., Grassi, B., Baldassarre, G., Zuccarelli, L., Biolo, G., diGirolamo, F. G., Fiotti, N., Dela, F., Greenhaff, P., & Maganaris, C. (2021). Impact of sedentarism due to the COVID-19 home confinement on neuromuscular, cardiovascular and metabolic health: Physiological and pathophysiological implications and recommendations for physical and nutritional countermeasures. European Journal of Sport Science, 21(4), 614–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2020.1761076
  • Neill, E., Meyer, D., Toh, W. L., van Rheenen, T. E., Phillipou, A., Tan, E. J., & Rossell, S. L. (2020). Alcohol use in Australia during the early days of the COVID‐19 pandemic: Initial results from the COLLATE project. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 74(10), 542–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.13099
  • Niven, A., & Hu, D. (2018). Office workers’ beliefs about reducing sitting time at work: A belief elicitation study. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, 6(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2018.1428103
  • Noble, N., Paul, C., Turon, H., & Oldmeadow, C. (2015). Which modifiable health risk behaviours are related? A systematic review of the clustering of smoking, nutrition, alcohol and physical activity (‘SNAP’) health risk factors. Preventive Medicine, 81, 16–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.07.003
  • Nylander, C. (2016). Protective factors, health-risk behaviours and the impact of coexisting ADHD among adolescents with diabetes and other chronic conditions [ Doctoral dissertation]. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
  • Ojo, S. O., Bailey, D. P., Hewson, D. J., & Chater, A. M. (2019). Perceived barriers and facilitators to breaking up sitting time among desk-based office workers: A qualitative investigation using the TDF and COM-B. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(16), 2903. Article 2903. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16162903
  • Park, J. H., Moon, J. H., Kim, H. J., Kong, M. H., & Oh, Y. H. (2020). Sedentary lifestyle: Overview of updated evidence of potential health risks. Korean Journal of Family Medicine, 41(6), 365. https://doi.org/10.4082/kjfm.20.0165
  • Phillipou, A., Meyer, D., Neill, E., Tan, E. J., Toh, W. L., Van Rheenen, T. E., & Rossell, S. L. (2020). Eating and exercise behaviors in eating disorders and the general population during the COVID‐19 pandemic in Australia: Initial results from the COLLATE project. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 53(7), 1158–1165. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23317
  • Phipps, D. J., Rhodes, R. E., Jenkins, K., Hannan, T. E., Browning, N. G., & Hamilton, K. (2022). A dual process model of affective and instrumental implicit attitude, self-monitoring, and sedentary behavior. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 62, 102222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2022.102222
  • Rhodes, R. E., Cox, A., & Sayar, R. (2022). What predicts the physical activity intention–behavior gap? A systematic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 56(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaab044
  • Rhodes, R. E., & de Bruijn, G. J. (2013). How big is the physical activity intention–behaviour gap? A meta‐analysis using the action control framework. British Journal of Health Psychology, 18(2), 296–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12032
  • Rhodes, R., de Bruijn, G.-J., & Matheson, D. H. (2010). Habit in the physical activity domain: Integration with intention temporal stability and action control. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 32(1), 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.32.1.84
  • Rhodes, R. E., Fiala, B., & Conner, M. (2009). A review and meta-analysis of affective judgments and physical activity in adult populations. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 38(3), 180–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-009-9147-y
  • Rhodes, R. E., McEwan, D., & Rebar, A. L. (2019). Theories of physical activity behaviour change: A history and synthesis of approaches. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 42, 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.11.010
  • Roberts, V., Maddison, R., Magnusson, J., & Prapavessis, H. (2010). Adolescent physical activity: Does implementation intention have a role? Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 7(4), 497–507. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.7.4.497
  • Ruissen, M. M., Regeer, H., Landstra, C. P., Schroijen, M., Jazet, I., Nijhoff, M. F., Pijl, H., Ballieux, B. E., Dekkers, O., Huisman, S. D., & de Koning, E. J. P. (2021). Increased stress, weight gain and less exercise in relation to glycemic control in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Open Diabetes Research and Care, 9(1), e002035. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2020-002035
  • Ryde, G. C., Atkinson, P., Stead, M., Gorely, T., & Evans, J. M. (2020). Physical activity in paid work time for desk-based employees: A qualitative study of employers’ and employees’ perspectives. Bmc Public Health, 20(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08580-1
  • Sallis, J. F., Owen, N., & Fisher, E. (2015). Ecological models of health behavior. Health Behavior: Theory, Research and Practice, 5, 43–64.
  • Salmon, J., Owen, N., Crawford, D., Bauman, A., & Sallis, J. F. (2003). Physical activity and sedentary behavior: A population-based study of barriers, enjoyment, and preference. Health Psychology, 22(2), 178. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.22.2.178
  • Santos, A. C., Willumsen, J., Meheus, F., Ilbawi, A., & Bull, F. C. (2023). The cost of inaction on physical inactivity to public health-care systems: A population-attributable fraction analysis. The Lancet Global Health, 11(1), e32–e39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00464-8
  • Sarnosky, K., Benden, M., Cizmas, L., Regan, A., & Sansom, G. (2021). Remote work and the environment: Exploratory analysis of indoor air quality of commercial offices and the home office. International Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Analysis, 9(2), 40. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijema.20210902.12
  • Savić, D. (2020). COVID-19 and work from home: Digital transformation of the workforce. Grey Journal (TGJ), 16(2), 101–104.
  • Schwarzer, R., & Hamilton, K. (2020). Changing behavior using the health action process approach. The Handbook of Behavior Change, 1, 89–103.
  • Shah, S. M. A., Mohammad, D., Qureshi, M. F. H., Abbas, M. Z., & Aleem, S. (2021). Prevalence, psychological responses and associated correlates of depression, anxiety and stress in a global population, during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Community Mental Health Journal, 57(1), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-020-00728-y
  • Shrestha, N., Grgic, J., Wiesner, G., Parker, A., Podnar, H., Bennie, J. A., Biddle, S. J. H., & Pedisic, Z. (2019). Effectiveness of interventions for reducing non-occupational sedentary behaviour in adults and older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 53(19), 1206–1213. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-098270
  • Sparks, P., Conner, M., James, R., Shepherd, R., & Povey, R. (2001). Ambivalence about health‐related behaviours: An exploration in the domain of food choice. British Journal of Health Psychology, 6(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1348/135910701169052
  • Straker, L., & Mathiassen, S. E. (2009). Increased physical work loads in modern work–a necessity for better health and performance? Ergonomics, 52(10), 1215–1225. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130903039101
  • Such, E., & Mutrie, N. (2017). Using organisational cultural theory to understand workplace interventions to reduce sedentary time. International Journal of Health Promotion and Education, 55(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/14635240.2016.1196382
  • Thomas, J. R., Nelson, J. K., & Silverman, S. J. (2015). Research methods in physical activity. Human Kinetics.
  • Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
  • Wendel‐Vos, W., Droomers, M., Kremers, S., Brug, J., & Van Lenthe, F. (2007). Potential environmental determinants of physical activity in adults: A systematic review. Obesity Reviews, 8(5), 425–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2007.00370.x
  • White, K. M., Terry, D. J., Troup, C., & Rempel, L. A. (2007). Behavioral, normative and control beliefs underlying low-fat dietary and regular physical activity behaviors for adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 12(4), 485–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548500601089932
  • Woessner, M. N., Tacey, A., Levinger-Limor, A., Parker, A. G., Levinger, P., & Levinger, I. (2021). The evolution of technology and physical inactivity: The good, the bad, and the way forward. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 655491. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.655491
  • Workplace Gender Equality Agency. (2021). Flexible work post-COVID. https://www.wgea.gov.au/publications/flexible-work-post-covid
  • World Health Organization. (2015). World health statistics 2015.
  • Xiao, Y., Becerik-Gerber, B., Lucas, G., & Roll, S. C. (2021). Impacts of working from home during COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental well-being of office workstation users. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(3), 181. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002097

Appendix A

Themes, Subthemes and Selected Quotes Supporting the Themes

Appendix B

Interview Guide

Interview Protocol/Questionnaire

Pre-Interview Instructions

  • Email the relevant information sheet

  • Confirm participant is happy to participate and commence the interview

  • Read the demographic survey to the participant and fill out the appropriate responses

Procedure

Introduction and Purpose of the Interview

  • Introduce investigator and affiliation.

  • Thank participant for agreeing to take part in the interview.

  • Inform participant that the interview will be based around a series of open-ended questions to understand more about their beliefs, attitudes, barriers and potential opportunities associated with increasing the amount of general physical activity within their working day.

  • Inform the participant that the information they provide may be used to inform the development of material that will be used for an intervention aimed to increase physical activity in sedentary office workers.

  • Let participant know you are grateful for their time and encourage them to participate in the interview as much as possible and to answer questions as honestly as they can.

  • Inform participant that the interview will last for approximately 30 minutes.

Interview Rules – Inform participate of the following …

  • Role of the Interviewer

    • My role is to facilitate the interview by asking questions and, if needed, asking for clarification or further information. My role is to also to guide the interview so we do not deviate from the topic of discussion.

  • Permission to Record Interview

    • As per your information sheet, the interview session is being audio-recorded. This will allow me to focus on what you are saying and not rely on my memory.

  • Rights of Participants Regarding Participation

    • The responses you provide are confidential and anonymous.

    • Your participation is voluntary and you are free to withdraw at any time without penalty.

    • Any information obtained from this study will be deidentified so that no individual participant can be identified.

    • All information including audio tapes and transcribed data will be securely stored and accessible only to the researchers.

    • Upon completion of the study, all audio recordings will be destroyed.

  • Rights of Participants Regarding Interview Discussion

    • There is NO right or wrong answers so please respond as honestly as you can.

    • I really value your opinion on this topic so please feel free to share your experiences as openly as possible.

    • Please try to speak as clearly as you can to help with the audio recording.

  • Are there any questions?

  • Do I still have your permission to tape record this interview?

  • Do you have any concerns or would like to change your mind about participating?

Interviewer Script

Hi [name] its Kailas from Griffith University, how are you this morning/afternoon?

I'm calling in regards to the interview for the “increasing your movement in the workplace” study, is this still a good time for us to talk?

Ok so before we begin ill run you through the process and give you a chance to ask any questions that you might have.

So firstly we will go over a few consent points before jumping into the actual questions. You might find that some of these questions are quite vague so there’s no right or wrong answers, the point is for me to get an understanding of what your day is like. And just to let you know I’ll be jotting down some notes as we go.

How does that sound? Great, do you have any questions at this point?

Ok awesome, so before we get into it, you should have received an email with a copy of the study information attached.

This is the same information that you would have read when you registered for the study.

No? – Ah not a problem I will email that through to you now so you have a copy. Can I just confirm your email address is …

Yes? – Ok great.

So I’ll read you the verbal consent points now and at the end of them I’ll ask you if you agree to participate, if at any point you have any questions just let me know.

  1. I had the participant information sheet provided to me and I understand the information. The research project has been fully explained to me and I have had all my questions answered. I know that I may ask for more information about the project as it goes on.

  2. I understand that taking part in this project is voluntary, and that I may stop taking part in the project at any time.

  3. I understand that the interview will be audio-recorded and audio-tapes will be transcribed and analysed. All audio-recordings will be erased after the project concludes.

  4. I understand that all information will be treated in the strictest confidence and used for research purposes only. I understand that I will not be personally identified in any reports from this project.

  5. I assign and waive all claims to patents, commercial exploitation, property or any material or products which may form part of or arise from this study.

  6. I understand that this research will comply with the National Health and Medical Research Council’s National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans and with the privacy policies of Griffith University.

  7. I understand that this study has been approved by the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee. I understand that if I have any questions about the ethical conduct of this study, I can contact the Griffith University Research Ethics Officer on (07) 3735 4375.

Do you give your verbal agreement to participate in this research study?   Yes   No

Name of Participant:———————————————————————   Date:——————

Name of Interviewer:——————————————————————   Date:——————

Signature of Interviewer:————————————————————    Date:——————

Great, so now that’s out of the way we can get into the actual discussion. So I have here that you currently:

  • work-from-office

  • work-from-home

  • mixture of work-from-office and work-from-home

Was your this affected by COVID at all?

Can you tell me a little bit about the details of your workplace?

  • – How you get to work?

  • – Describe your workspace to me?

  • – What is the social environment like in your workplace?

So with regards to moving more during your day: What do you see as the advantages?

  • – What positive experiences or feelings do you think would result from you moving more during your workday? (e.g. excited, happy, glad, satisfied, proud)

  • – What do you see as the disadvantages of you moving more during your workday?

  • – What negative experiences or feelings do you think would result from you moving more during your workday? (e.g. angry, guilty, ashamed, sad, disappointed, worried)

With regards to the social aspects of moving more during your day:

  • – Who are the individuals or groups, that are important to you, who you feel would approve of you moving more during your workday?

  • – Who are the individuals or groups, that are important to you, who you feel would disapprove of you moving more during your workday?

  • – Are there any individuals or groups important to you who themselves are trying to move more during their workday?

  • – Are there any individuals or groups important to you who are not trying to move more during their workday?

In regard to your physical work environment:

  • – What are the factors and circumstances that would make it easier for you, or would enable you, to move more during their workday?

  • – What are the factors and circumstances that would make it difficult for you, or would prevent you from moving more during your workday?

Thank you for all we have discussed so far. Now I would like to talk about the routines you have when you’re at work.

  • – Describe to me what a typical work day would be like for you?

  • – Would you consider some of these things that you do to be more regular and routine than others?

  • – When thinking about your workday, what things could you use as reminders to move more?

  • – So during your day, what are the types of things that you get up from your desk to do?

If you had to pick 3 different actions that you perform regularly at the office, what would they be?

  • (1) Receiving phone calls

  • (2) Printing

  • (3) Disposing of rubbish in bin

If you had to pick 3 different actions that you perform regularly at your home office, what would they be?

  • (1) Receiving phone calls

  • (2) Teleconference meetings

  • (3) Making tea, coffee or water

For mixed home/office workers

  • – Think about both your home office and work office, what are some of the similarities between the environments?

  • – Do you do any chores or outdoor activities during your day? → Can you expand on this for me

The purpose of our discussion today was to gain knowledge from office workers about their views on moving more in the workplace, such as benefits and barriers. Do you think that we have missed anything important in our conversation?

Before I conclude, I would like to summarise what has been discussed here today and check that you agree with what I have understood from our discussions. The main things I have gathered from the interview today are …

Do you agree with what I have said? Do you have any questions or comments?

Thank you SO MUCH for taking the time to participate in this interview. I really appreciate your participation and effort. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact a member of the research team – the researchers email address and phone number are on your information sheet.