Duncan, M J; Short, C; Rashid, M; Cutumisu, N; Vandelanotte, C and Plotnikoff, R C (2015) Identifying correlates of breaks in occupational sitting: A cross-sectional study. Building Research & Information, 43(5), pp. 646-658. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Office workers are commonly targeted in interventions to modify their sitting behaviour, yet there is limited evidence of the correlates of breaks in sitting to inform intervention development. This study identifies the individual, workplace and spatial configuration correlates of the frequency of breaks in sitting (number/hour) in office workers (n = 5531) stratified by office type (private-enclosed, shared, open plan). All behaviours and potential correlates were measured via self-report using an online cross-sectional survey. Regression analyses revealed age was the only socio-demographic characteristic associated with frequency of breaks in sitting in all office types. Greater job autonomy and local connectivity were positively associated with frequency of breaks in sitting in shared and open-plan offices. In open-plan offices co-worker proximity was negatively associated with frequency of breaks in sitting. Co-worker visibility was positively associated with frequency of breaks in sitting in all office types. This study demonstrates that individual, workplace and spatial configuration factors are all associated with the frequency of breaks in sitting and that these relationships differ by office type. These observations extend prior studies that have only examined correlates at a single level (e.g. the individual). This evidence could be useful to guide future interventions in the design of workplaces to increase breaks in sitting and workers physical activity.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | active design; building design; health risks; office design; physical activity; sedentary behaviour; sitting; wellbeing; workplace design |
| Index terms: | survey, active design, open plan, health risk, connectivity, building design, regression analysis, spatial configuration, office design, sedentary behaviour, workplace design, evidence, physical activity, well-being |
| Subjects: | user focus, mental health and wellbeing, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, health behaviours and lifestyles, architectural design, design concepts, design practice, specialized design, networking, statistical analysis, environmental health |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Digital Applications, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here