Strategies to promote physical activityin the workplace: The MoveM8 study<br />Stockton-on-Tees, June 2011<br />	Marco Bar...
BACKGROUND & RATIONALE<br />
The research team<br />Prof. L. Suzanne Suggs, Dr. Carolina Gross &Marco Bardus1<br />Dr. Holly Blake2<br />Scott Lloyd3<b...
4<br />
PHYSICAL ACTIVITYIN THE WORKPLACE<br />
Why workplaces?<br />Promising setting for health improvement(Pronk et al., 2009)<br />60% of waking hours spent at work (...
RATIONALE<br />
Rationale of the MoveM8<br />8<br />
Evidence from the field<br />E-health effectiveness (Bennett & Glasgow, 2009; Powell, 2010; Hurling et al., 2006; Ware et ...
THE MOVEM8PROJECT<br />
TWO STUDIES<br />
The twostudies<br />STUDY 1“THE INTERVENTION”<br />September 2009-August 2010<br />STUDY 2“REASONS FOR PARTICIPATION”<br /...
OBJECTIVES & RQs<br />
Objectives and RQs<br />STUDY 1: THE INTERVENTION<br />STUDY 2:REASONS FOR PARTICIPATION <br />To examine the effects of a...
METHODOLOGY<br />
DESIGN<br />
Design<br />STUDY 1:THE INTERVENTION<br />STUDY 2:REASONS FOR PARTICIPATION <br />Group 1 (control)<br />1 weekly personal...
INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT<br />
Intervention Development<br />19<br />
Message themes and scheduling<br />20<br />
Hi M8!The weekend is almost here. Y don't you plan for an activity you like doing? Just be sure to do it for at least 20-3...
RECRUITMENT<br />
The MoveM8 identity<br />
The MoveM8 identity<br />24<br />
PARTICIPANTSAND SAMPLING<br />
Participating workplaces<br /><ul><li>Avecia Biologics Ltd., Billingham
Dow Chemical Company Ltd., Stockton-on-Tees
Vopak Terminal Teeside Ltd., Stockton-on-Tees
Redcar & Cleveland BC, Redcar
Stockton Riverside College, Stockton-on-Tees
Cummins, Darlington
HMP Holme House, Stockton-on-Tees
3M, Northalleton
Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds
Age Concern Calderdale & Kirklees, Halifax
Astbury Digital, Asthon-under-Lyne
Tameside MBC, Asthon-under-Lyne
Two Trees Tameside Sport College, Tameside
Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, Liverpool
University of Nottingham, Nottingham
De Montfort University, Leicester
Equity Direct Broking Ltd., Colchester
Vodafone Group Services Ltd., Donnington
Zest People Ltd, Worthing</li></ul>26<br />
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

MoveM8 Stockton on Tees June 2011

663 views
601 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
663
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

MoveM8 Stockton on Tees June 2011

  1. 1. Strategies to promote physical activityin the workplace: The MoveM8 study<br />Stockton-on-Tees, June 2011<br /> Marco Bardus<br /> Institute for Public Communication and Education (ICIeF)<br />UniversitàdellaSvizzeraitaliana marco.bardus@usi.ch<br />Scott Lloyd<br /> NHS Redcar & Cleveland<br /> Public Health Directorate<br />scott.lloyd@northteespct.nhs.uk<br />
  2. 2. BACKGROUND & RATIONALE<br />
  3. 3. The research team<br />Prof. L. Suzanne Suggs, Dr. Carolina Gross &Marco Bardus1<br />Dr. Holly Blake2<br />Scott Lloyd3<br />1Università della Svizzera italiana (University of Lugano)<br />2 University of Nottingham<br />3 NHS Redcar and Cleveland<br />3<br />
  4. 4. 4<br />
  5. 5. PHYSICAL ACTIVITYIN THE WORKPLACE<br />
  6. 6. Why workplaces?<br />Promising setting for health improvement(Pronk et al., 2009)<br />60% of waking hours spent at work (captive audience)<br />Key Government policies (e.g. Dame Carol Black’s report)<br />Employer benefits – e.g.physically inactive people are off work sick 27% more<br />6<br />
  7. 7. RATIONALE<br />
  8. 8. Rationale of the MoveM8<br />8<br />
  9. 9. Evidence from the field<br />E-health effectiveness (Bennett & Glasgow, 2009; Powell, 2010; Hurling et al., 2006; Ware et al., 2008)<br />E-mail at workplace(Plotnikoff et al., 2005; van Wier et al., 2011)<br />Mobile phones for behaviour change (Fjeldsoe, Marshall, & Miller, 2009; Krishna et al., 2009)<br />TPB (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Armitage, 2007; Glanz, 2009; Montano & Kasprzyk, 2008)<br />PA in workplaces (Abraham & Graham-Rowe, 2009; Merrill et al., 2011)<br />9<br />
  10. 10. THE MOVEM8PROJECT<br />
  11. 11. TWO STUDIES<br />
  12. 12. The twostudies<br />STUDY 1“THE INTERVENTION”<br />September 2009-August 2010<br />STUDY 2“REASONS FOR PARTICIPATION”<br />June 2011-July 2011<br />Stockton-on-Tees, 29/06/2011<br />12<br />
  13. 13. OBJECTIVES & RQs<br />
  14. 14. Objectives and RQs<br />STUDY 1: THE INTERVENTION<br />STUDY 2:REASONS FOR PARTICIPATION <br />To examine the effects of addingtwo SMS to the email communication on:<br />perceived message relevance<br />TPB constructs (Attitudes, Subjective Norms, Perceived Behavioral Control, or Intention)<br />physical activity behaviour<br />To identify the reasons for participating in the programme (Reach). <br />To examine individual characteristics impacting on participation.<br />To identify organisational and environmental moderators (Implementation)<br />To assess the impact at the organisational level (Maintenance).<br />14<br />What effects?<br />How effective?<br />Why? How effective?<br />
  15. 15. METHODOLOGY<br />
  16. 16. DESIGN<br />
  17. 17. Design<br />STUDY 1:THE INTERVENTION<br />STUDY 2:REASONS FOR PARTICIPATION <br />Group 1 (control)<br />1 weekly personalised e-mail<br />Group 2 (experimental)<br />1 weekly personalised e-mail+ 2 standard SMS/wk<br />FG-INT with employees (participants and non-participants)<br />INT with health advocates of participating organisations<br />Online survey: health advocates of non-participating organisations<br />17<br />RCT with twostudy groups<br />Semi-structured interviews+online survey<br />
  18. 18. INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT<br />
  19. 19. Intervention Development<br />19<br />
  20. 20. Message themes and scheduling<br />20<br />
  21. 21. Hi M8!The weekend is almost here. Y don't you plan for an activity you like doing? Just be sure to do it for at least 20-30 minutes. Get movin M8! (behaviour construct)<br />Hi M8! Have u set a SMART goal for the week? SMART goals are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Time specific. Be SMART, start w/ small steps! (intention construct)<br />Hi M8! There r many benefits of physical activity. Y don't u take advantage of 30 mins of moderate or 20 mins of vigorous activity almost everyday? (attitude construct)<br />Hello, M8! How did u do over the weekend? Learn from what went well and what did not. Set yourself up for success this week. (perceived behavioural control)<br />
  22. 22. RECRUITMENT<br />
  23. 23. The MoveM8 identity<br />
  24. 24. The MoveM8 identity<br />24<br />
  25. 25. PARTICIPANTSAND SAMPLING<br />
  26. 26. Participating workplaces<br /><ul><li>Avecia Biologics Ltd., Billingham
  27. 27. Dow Chemical Company Ltd., Stockton-on-Tees
  28. 28. Vopak Terminal Teeside Ltd., Stockton-on-Tees
  29. 29. Redcar & Cleveland BC, Redcar
  30. 30. Stockton Riverside College, Stockton-on-Tees
  31. 31. Cummins, Darlington
  32. 32. HMP Holme House, Stockton-on-Tees
  33. 33. 3M, Northalleton
  34. 34. Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds
  35. 35. Age Concern Calderdale & Kirklees, Halifax
  36. 36. Astbury Digital, Asthon-under-Lyne
  37. 37. Tameside MBC, Asthon-under-Lyne
  38. 38. Two Trees Tameside Sport College, Tameside
  39. 39. Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, Liverpool
  40. 40. University of Nottingham, Nottingham
  41. 41. De Montfort University, Leicester
  42. 42. Equity Direct Broking Ltd., Colchester
  43. 43. Vodafone Group Services Ltd., Donnington
  44. 44. Zest People Ltd, Worthing</li></ul>26<br />
  45. 45. Participants and sampling<br />STUDY 1:THE INTERVENTION<br />STUDY 2:REASONS FOR PARTICIPATION <br />ORGANISATIONS<br />Particip. =17<br />Potential non part. >1,500<br />EMPLOYEES<br />Enrolled employees =367<br />Non-enrolled employees =137<br />ORGANISATIONS<br />Contacted >1,500<br />Enrolled =19<br />Drop-outs =2<br />EMPLOYEES<br />Estimated reference pop. ~12,000<br />Experimental pop. =510<br />Participants =393<br />Drop-outs =26<br />27<br />Sampling: RCT<br />Sampling: Purposive<br />
  46. 46. ASSESSMENTS<br />
  47. 47. Assessments – Study 1<br />> Increase in PA level: weekly time spent, frequency, intensity and type of activity<br />> Reduction in time spent sitting<br />IPAQ-L: 14 items, 4 domains (Work, Domestic, Travelling, Leisure time)<br />Type of activity: Moderate/Vigorous/Walking<br />> Change in TPB constructs <br />validated TPB survey: 38 items (INT=3 dir.; ATT=3 dir., 5+5 ind.;PBC=3 dir.; 4+4 ind.; SN=3 dir.; 4+4 ind.) <br />> Perceived message relevance<br />> Satisfaction with the programme<br />29<br />
  48. 48. Assessments – Study 2<br />EMPLOYEES<br />Reasons for participation and non-participation<br />Attitudes about benefits of doing PA Perceived barriers to PA<br />Personal preferences re: technology<br />HEALTH ADVOCATES (HR, H&S, OH etc.)<br />Organisational attitudes and predispositions towards WHPP<br />Presence or absence of barriers to PA<br />Past experiences with WHPP<br />Reasons for participation<br />Perceived benefits<br />Possible moderators of recruitment<br />Impact on organisational policies <br />30<br />
  49. 49. PRELIMINARY RESULTS<br />
  50. 50. Sample description (N=393)<br />32<br /><ul><li>Mean age: 39.3 years (SD=11.7, min=18, max=63)
  51. 51. Gender: female (78.9%)
  52. 52. Education: higher degree (68.7%)
  53. 53. Work status: Full-time (84.5%)
  54. 54. Family status: Live with partner (67.7%), have kids (31.8%),single (29.5%), single parent (4.8%)
  55. 55. Health status: good (47.8%) very good-excellent (38.7)
  56. 56. BMI: mean=26.3 (SD=5.4; min=17.1; max=53.6)
  57. 57. BMI category: normal (45.3%), overweight (31.6%), obese (20.9%) </li></li></ul><li>Physical activity levels<br />33<br />Cross-sectional Median Intensity scores (MET-min/wk) and Interquartile Range of PA from baseline to 4-months follow-up for each domain<br />* Highly active category - Guidelines for data processing and analysis of IPAQ, 2005<br />
  58. 58. Total PA decrease?<br />One-way repeated measures ANOVA<br />Non significant effect for time:<br />Wilk’s Lambda = .915, F (2, 93) = 4.3, p = .16<br />34<br />
  59. 59. Leisure-time and job-related PA<br />Work. Statistically significant difference in PA scores at work across the three time periods for the experimental group.<br />Chi square (2, n = 55) = 6.280, p = .043<br />Leisure time. Statistically significant difference in PA scores in leisure time across the three time periods for the experimental group.<br />Chi square (2, n = 55) = 5.833, p = .054<br />35<br />
  60. 60. DISCUSSION<br />
  61. 61. Main findings: BL-FUP comparison<br />ENCOURAGING RESULTS<br />LIMITATIONS<br />Positive significant increase injob-related and leisure-time PA between pre- and post-test for experimental group<br />2/3 highly satisfied with the programme<br />Constant high motivation levels for PA participation <br />Low survey response rates, (but in line with other studies)<br />Low participation<br />Over-reporting in PA levels (IPAQ-L issue, self report vs objective measures)<br />1/3 did not read all messages<br />37<br />
  62. 62. Problems encountered<br />MAIN PROBLEMS<br />POSSIBLE CAUSES<br />Low participation<br />Low survey response<br />Environmental: H1N1, seasonality<br />Organisational: Other ongoing WHPP Low endorsement<br />Individual: time, workload, other priorities<br />Technical: firewalls, computer access<br />Promotion: low budget<br />38<br />Survey fatigue<br />Survey instrument<br />Limited workplaces signing up (possible fear of research…)<br />
  63. 63. Possible improvements to MoveM8 v2?<br />1) Customer orientation. Design and develop the intervention with worksites. More thorough formative research<br />2) Exchange. Tangible incentives => fairer exchange<br />3) Competition. Thorough analysis of all forms of competition (competing behaviours, barriers, other programmes, etc.)<br />4) Segmentation. Appropriate target segmentation<br />39<br />
  64. 64. Discussion: some open questions<br />Is the intervention reaching thosemost in need?<br />How much communication is needed (dose response)?<br />Why some people subscribe (or not)?<br />How could SMS and/or emails improve traditional services/interventions (e.g. weight loss groups)<br />40<br />
  65. 65. Potential interventions<br />MoveM8 v2<br />Other behaviours<br />Weight loss<br />5-a-day / diet<br />Smoking<br />Integrate with existing services -> more than appointment reminders<br />Community based – using Mosaic market segmentation?<br />
  66. 66. Communication channels: mobile phone<br />
  67. 67. Communication channels: email<br />
  68. 68. THANK YOUFOR YOUR ATTENTION!<br />

×