Repository hosted by TU Delft Library

Home · Contact · About · Disclaimer ·
 

Physical activity and relaxation in the work setting to reduce the need for recovery: what works for whom?

Author: Formanoy, M.A. · Dusseldorp, E. · Coffeng, J.K. · Mechelen, I. van · Boot, C.R. · Hendriksen, I.J. · Tak, E.C.
Type:article
Date:2016
Source:BMC Public Health, 1, 16
Identifier: 562846
doi: doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3457-3
Article number: 866
Keywords: Health · Motivational interviewing · Social environmental intervention · Environmental modifications · Physical activity · Worksite health promotion · Relaxation program · Need for recovery · Work · QUINT · Worksite health promotion · Follow up · Health program · Health promotion · Human · HHuman experiment · Leadership · Leisure · Office worker · Physical activity · Healthy for Life · Healthy Living · Life · CH - Child Health · ELSS - Earth, Life and Social Sciences

Abstract

Background: To recover from work stress, a worksite health program aimed at improving physical activity and relaxation may be valuable. However, not every program is effective for all participants, as would be expected within a "one size fits all" approach. The effectiveness of how the program is delivered may differ across individuals. The aim of this study was to identify subgroups for whom one intervention may be better suited than another by using a new method called QUalitative INteraction Trees (QUINT). Methods: Data were used from the "Be Active & Relax" study, in which 329 office workers participated. Two delivery modes of a worksite health program were given, a social environmental intervention (group motivational interviewing delivered by team leaders) and a physical environmental intervention (environmental modifications). The main outcome was change in Need for Recovery (NFR) from baseline to 12 month follow-up. The QUINT method was used to identify subgroups that benefitted more from either type of delivery mode, by incorporating moderator variables concerning sociodemographic, health, home, and work-related characteristics of the participants.Results: The mean improvement in NFR of younger office workers in the social environmental intervention group was significantly higher than younger office workers who did not receive the social environmental intervention (10.52; 95 % CI: 4.12, 16.92). Furthermore, the mean improvement in NFR of older office workers in the social environmental intervention group was significantly lower than older office workers who did not receive the social environmental intervention ( -10.65; 95 % CI: -19.35, -1.96). The results for the physical environmental intervention indicated that the mean improvement in NFR of office workers (regardless of age) who worked fewer hours overtime was significantly higher when they had received the physical environmental intervention than when they had not received this type of intervention (7.40; 95 % CI: 0.99, 13.81). Finally, for office workers who worked more hours overtime there was no effect of the physical environmental intervention. Conclusions: The results suggest that a social environmental intervention might be more beneficial for younger workers, and a physical environmental intervention might be more beneficial for employees with a few hours overtime to reduce the NFR.