Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

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

Authors: Margriet A. G. Formanoy, Elise Dusseldorp, Jennifer K. Coffeng, Iven Van Mechelen, Cecile R. L. Boot, Ingrid J. M. Hendriksen, Erwin C. P. M. Tak

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

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.

Trial registration

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Kompier M. The psychosocial work environment and health--what do we know and where should we go? Scand J Work Environ Health. 2002;28(1):1–4.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Heber E, Ebert DD, Lehr D, Nobis S, Berking M, Riper H. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a web-based and mobile stress-management intervention for employees: design of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:655–2458. 13-655.
3.
Eurofound. Fifth European Working Conditions Survey, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 2012. doi:10.​2806/​34660.
4.
Sluiter JK, De Croon EM, Meijman TF, Frings-Dresen MH. Need for recovery from work-related fatigue and its role in the development and prediction of subjective health complaints. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60:i62–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Van Veldhoven M, Broersen S. Measurement quality and validity of the “need for recovery scale. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60:3–9.CrossRef
6.
Kraaijeveld RA, Huysmans MA, Hoozemans MJ, van der Beek AJ, Spekle EM. The influence of psychosocial work characteristics on the need for recovery from work: a prospective study among computer workers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2013;87(3):241–8.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Van Amelsvoort LG, Kant IJ, Bultmann U, Swaen GM. Need for recovery after work and the subsequent risk of cardiovascular disease in a working population. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60:i83–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Siltaloppi M, Kinnunen U, Feldt T, Tolvanen A. Development of need for recovery from work over one year: a person-centered approach. Anxiety, Stress Coping. 2012;25(1):23–42.CrossRef
9.
Rook JW, Zijlstra FRH. The contribution of various types of activities to recovery. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2006;15:218–40.CrossRef
10.
Norris R, Carroll D, Cochrane R. The effects of aerobic and anaerobic training on fitness, blood pressure, and psychological stress and well-being. J Psychosom Res. 1990;34:367–75.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Lechner L, de Vries H. Effects of an employee fitness program on reduced absenteeism. J Occup Environ Med. 1997;39(9):827–31.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Rosenfeld O, Tenenbaum G, Ruskin H. Behavioural modifications following a physical activity programme in the Israeli pharmaceutical industry. Aust J Sci Med Sport. 1990;22:93–6.
13.
Hahn VC, Binnewies C, Sonnentag S, Mozja EJ. Learning how to recover from job stress: effects of a recovery training program on recovery, recovery-related self-efficacy, and well-being. J Occup Health Psych. 2011;16(2):202–16.CrossRef
14.
Sonnentag S, Fritz C. The recovery experience questionnaire: development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. J Occup Health Psych. 2007;12:204–21.CrossRef
15.
Trougakos JP, Beal DJ, Green SG, Weiss HM. Making the break count: an episodic examination of recovery activities, emotional experiences, and performance of affective displays. Acad Manag J. 2008;51:131–1146.CrossRef
16.
Coffeng JK, Boot CR, Duits SF, Twisk JW, Mechelen W, Hendriksen IJ. Effectiveness of a worksite social & physical environment intervention on need for recovery, physical activity and relaxation; results of a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e114860.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Strijk JE, Proper KI, Van der Beek AJ, Van Mechelen W. A worksite vitality intervention to improve older workers’ lifestyle and vitality-related outcomes: results of a randomised controlled trial. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(11):1071–8. doi:10.​1136/​jech-2011-200626.
18.
Taris TW, Ybema JF, Beckers DG, Verheijden MW, Geurts SA, Kompier MA. Investigating the associations among overtime work, health behaviors, and health: a longitudinal study among full-time employees. Int J Behav Med. 2011;18(4):352–60.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Coffeng JK, Hendriksen IJM, Duijts SF, Proper KI, van Mechelen W, Boot CRL. The development of the be active & relax ‘Vitality in Practice’ (VIP) project and design of an RCT to reduce the need for recovery in office employees. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):592–617.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Velasquez MM, Stephens NS, Ingersoll KS. Motivational interviewing in groups. J Groups Addict Recover. 2006;1:27–50.CrossRef
21.
Coffeng JK, Hendriksen IJ, Duits SF, Twisk JW, Mechelen W, Boot CR. Effectiveness of a combined social and physical environmental intervention on presenteeism, absenteeism, work performance, and work engagement in office employees. J Occup Environ Med. 2014;56(3):258–65.CrossRefPubMed
22.
LeBlanc M, Crowley J. Survival trees by goodness of split. JASA. 1993;88(422):457–67.CrossRef
23.
Dusseldorp E, Van Mechelen I. Qualitative interaction trees: a tool to identify qualitative treatment-subgroup interactions. Stat Med. 2014;33(2):219–37.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Dusseldorp E, Doove L, Van Mechelen I. Quint: An R package for the identification of subgroups of clients who differ in which treatment alternative is best for them. Behav Res Methods. 2015;48:650–63.CrossRefPubMedCentral
25.
Bartholomew LK, Parcel GS, Kok G, Gottlieb NH. Planning health promotion programs: an intervention mapping approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2006.
26.
De Croon EM, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MHW. Psychometric properties of the Need for Recovery after work scale: test-retest reliability and sensitivity to detect change. Occup Environ Med. 2006;63:202–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Engbers LH, van Poppel MNM, China Paw MJM, van Mechelen W. Worksite health promotion programs with environmental changes. Am J Prev Med. 2005;29:61–70.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Leach D, Rogelberg SG, Warr PB, Burnfield JL. Perceived meeting effectiveness: the role of design characteristics. J Bus Psychol. 2011;24:65–76.CrossRef
29.
Haynes BP. The impact of the behavioural environment on office productivity. J Fac Man. 2007;5:158–71.
30.
Olsen J. Research about office workplace activities important to US business-and how to support them. J Fac Man. 2002;1:31–47.
31.
Veitch JA, Newsham GR, Boyce PR, Jones CC. Lighting appraisal, well-being, and performance in open-plan offices: a linked mechanisms approach. Light Res Technol. 2008;40:133–51.CrossRef
32.
Weiss HM, Cropanzano R. An effective events approach to job satisfaction. In: Staw B, Cummings L, editors. Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich: JAI Press; 1996.
33.
Steenstra IA, Knol DL, Bongers PM, Anema JR, van Mechelen W, de Vet HC. What works best for whom? An exploratory, subgroup analysis in a randomized, controlled trial on the effectiveness of a workplace intervention in low back pain patients on return to work. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(12):1243–9.CrossRef
34.
Colkesen EB, Niessen MA, Peek N, Vosbergen S, Kraaijenhagen RA, van Kalken CK, Tijssen JG, Peters RJ. Initiation of health-behaviour change among employees participating in a web-based health risk assessment with tailored feedback. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2011;6:5–6673. 6-5.
35.
Dishman RK, Vandenberg RJ, Motl RW, Wilson MG, DeJoy DM. Dose relations between goal setting, theory-based correlates of goal setting and increases in physical activity during a workplace trial. Health Educ Res. 2010;25(4):620–31.CrossRefPubMed
36.
37.
Ravaud P, Giraudeau B, Auleley GR, Edouard-Noël R, Dougados M, Chastang C. Assessing smallest detectable change over time in continuous structural outcome measures: application to radiological change in knee osteoarthritis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(12):1225–30.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Rongen A, Robroek SJW, van Lenthe FJ, Burdorf A. Workplace health promotion: a meta-analysis of effectiveness. Am J Prev Med. 2013;44:406–15.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Hughes SL, Seymour RB, Campbell RT, Shaw JW, Fabiyi C, Sokas R. Comparison of two health-promotion programs for older workers. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(5):883–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Kiss P, de Meester M, Braeckman L. Differences between younger and older workers in the need for recovery after work. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2008;81(3):311–20.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Mohren DC, Jansen NW, Kant IJ. Need for recovery from work in relation to age: a prospective cohort study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2010;83(5):553–61.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Coffeng JK, Hendriksen IJM, van Mechelen W, Boot CRL. Process evaluation of a worksite social and physical environmental intervention. J Occup Environ Med. 2013;55(12):1409–20.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Robroek SJW, van Lenthe FJ, van Empelen P, Burdorf A. Determinants of participation in worksite health promotion programmes: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009;6(26):1–12.
44.
Van der Zee KI, Sanderman R. Het meten van de algemene gezondheidstoestand met de RAND-36. Een Handleiding: Groningen: noordelijk centrum voor gezondheidsvraagstukken 1993.
45.
De Bloom J, Geurts SA, Sonnentag S, Taris T, de Weerth C, Kompier MA. How does a vacation from work affect employee health and well-being? Psychol Health 2011;26(12):1606–1622.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Wendel-Vos GC, Schuit AJ, Saris WH, Kromhout D. Reproducibility and relative validity of the Short Questionnaire to Assess Health-enhancing physical activity. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:1163–1169.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Karasek R, Brisson C, Kawakami N, Houtman I, Bongers P, Amick B. The Job content Questionnaire (JCQ): an instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. J Occup Health Psychol 1998;3(4):322–355.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Demou E, Gibson I, Macdonald EB. Identification of the factors associated with outcomes in a Condition Management Programme. BMC Public Health 2012;12(1):927.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
49.
Bauman AE, Reis RS, Sallis JF, Wells JC, Loos RJF, Martin BW. Correlates of physical activity: why are some people physicalle active and others not? Lancet 2012;380:258–271.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Meyer JP, Stanley DJ, Herscovitch L, Topolnytski L. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates and consequences. J Vocat Behav 2002;61(1):20–52.CrossRef
51.
Lohela M, Björklund C, Vingård E, Hagberg J, Jensen I. Does a change in psychosocial work factors lead to a change in employee health? J Occup Environ Med 2009;51(2):195–203.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Choi B, Östergren PO, Canivet C, Moghadassi M, Lindeberg S, Karasek R, Isacsson SO. Synergistic interaction effect between job control and social support at work on general pscyhological distress. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2011;84(1):77–89.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Van Laethem M, Beckers DG, Kompier MA, Dijksterhuis A, Geurts SA. Psychosocial work characteristics and sleep quality: a systematic review of longitudinal and intervention research. Scand J Work Environ. Health 2013;39(6):535–549.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Mullan M. The relationship between objective and perceived work stressors: an exploratory study (New York). Columbia University, United States - New York; 1985.
55.
Karlsson ML, Björklund C, Jensen I. The effects of psychosocial work factors on production loss, and the mediating effect of employee health. J Occup Environ Med 2010;52(3): 310–317.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Physical activity and relaxation in the work setting to reduce the need for recovery: what works for whom?
Authors
Margriet A. G. Formanoy
Elise Dusseldorp
Jennifer K. Coffeng
Iven Van Mechelen
Cecile R. L. Boot
Ingrid J. M. Hendriksen
Erwin C. P. M. Tak
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3457-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Public Health 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research article

The association between graduated driver licensing laws and travel behaviors among adolescents: an analysis of US National Household Travel Surveys

Research article

Epidemiological survey of intentional poisoning suicide during 1993-2013 in Ilam Province, Iran

Research article

Alcohol in urban streetscapes: a comparison of the use of Google Street View and on-street observation

Research article

Substantial improvements not seen in health behaviors following corner store conversions in two Latino food swamps

Study protocol

The Healthy Primary School of the Future: study protocol of a quasi-experimental study

Research article

Ideal cardiovascular health status and its association with socioeconomic factors in Chinese adults in Shandong, China