Before beginning the analysis, the first author (AC) used a quality assurance framework to assess the validity of the research against 4 criteria, (1) sensitivity to context, (2) commitment and rigor, (3) transparency and coherency and (4) impact and importance39. Sensitivity, defined as not imposing pre-conceived categories onto the data but considering the meaning generated by participants, was ensured by using an audit trail and a “critical friend” approach, whereby an expert in the field (KD) discussed the theme development. Commitment and rigor, demonstrated by in-depth engagement with the topic, including data collection and analysis, was ensured through regular training prior to the data collection to promote consistency across the countries alongside input and critical analysis from experts in qualitative analysis (DW & CVC). Transparency, whereby readers should be able to clearly see how interpretations were derived, was established using quotes from participants and a thematic analysis report. Lastly, impact and importance, referring to the requirement for the research, was apparent due to the gaps identified in the literature in relation to factors influencing employee’s ability to reduce their sedentary behaviors in a home-office context and the need for this research to inform future interventions amongst this cohort.
A total of 51 employees from Ireland, Spain and the Netherlands participated in the semi-structured focus groups and interviews. In total, 55% of participants were male, while 39% were aged between 36 and 45 years old. Table 1 illustrates baseline characteristics of the participants.
Following completion of the reflective thematic analysis, 4 themes were developed with a total of 10 sub-themes. The 4 themes developed, which will be discussed in detail below, are: (1) We’re not all the same, (2) Trust us and give us freedom, (3) We can’t do this without support and (4) Tell us more and show us how. Table 2 outlines the mapping of the themes and sub-themes to the COM-B. For each theme, a broad overview paragraph will be presented at the beginning, followed by a description of the theme with supporting quotes. At the end of the theme, a brief wrap-up paragraph will be provided to bring the sub-themes together and illustrate its relevance to the overall theme. Furthermore, as is important within reflexive thematic analysis, the author has made interpretations to the content or quotes provided by the participants and as such, the findings presented below are a combination of direct quotes from the participants and interpretations from the author (AC) to provide greater detail and understanding to the content.
This theme highlights the need for flexibility within interventions and the provision of autonomy to employees as, particularly in large organisations, there is a wide range of schedules, physical activity interests and needs that exist within a work force.
Employees highlighted how previous initiatives organised by companies adopted a one-size-fits-all approach, which led to the exclusion of a certain percentage of the workforce who may not have the required fitness levels or interest in the chosen physical activity strategies, such as fitness classes or competitions. Whilst competitions, like step challenges, appear to be have been common amongst organisations trying to reduce the sedentary behaviours of their employees, they were seen as discouraging for those who may not be as active or physically fit as others. Conversely, competitions may encourage those who regularly engage in physical activity, highlighting the disparity that may exist within a workforce. The wide variation in fitness levels means that employees want flexibility on how they can reduce their sedentary behaviours, such as the provision of a range of different types of physical activity in which they can engage in.
In addition to the wide variation in fitness levels, employees also highlighted how certain employees, such as graduates or entry-level employees may have more time to reduce their sedentary behaviours. However, senior and/or longer-serving employees may have full schedules, such as back-to-back meetings, which may make it much harder to reduce their sedentary behaviours. In addition to the inter-personal differences, employees also highlighted how they may have more opportunities to reduce their sedentary behaviours on certain days. A lack of awareness, or simply not thinking about when they could reduce their sedentary behaviours, also seems to be problematic.
It is clear that to reduce the sedentary behaviours of a workforce, employees need to be given individual autonomy over how and when they reduce their sedentary behaviours. This creates the much-needed flexibility in what appears to be a demanding home-office environment.
Notably, it was apparent that no single component (strategies used to change behaviour) alone was highlighted by all employees as a factor influencing their ability to reduce their sedentary behaviours. Instead, there was a wide range of components highlighted across the interviews/focus groups, such as education, creating opportunities and policy changes, suggesting that the needs for behaviour change differ greatly across an organisation. For example, many employees felt that despite having the opportunity to reduce their sedentary behaviours, such as having gym equipment available to them, they still did not utilise these opportunities.
Furthermore, many employees felt the provision of education alone, through leaflets, seminars or workshops, did not impact their sedentary behaviours, as this left them relying on their own motivation without any influence from their organisation or a change in their environment. It was felt that they often needed two components, such as education combined with policy changes, to help them reduce their sedentary behaviours.
Overall, there appears to be a wide range of needs that exist within an organisation to enable employees to reduce their sedentary behaviours. For some, education alone has been deemed ineffective, whilst others did not reduce their sedentary behaviours despite having frequent opportunities to do so. It is apparent that due to the unique nature and set-up of working from home, all employees have their own needs or requirements to reduce their sedentary behaviours.
This theme highlights how interventions targeting a reduction in sedentary behaviours in the home-office are unlikely to be effective without organisational support. Employees want their organisations to show interest in helping them reduce their sedentary behaviour and improve the culture that exists around promoting physical activity during work hours.
Employees feel that there is very little support from their employers in reducing their sedentary behavior whilst working from home and that it is seen as their own responsibility should they want to be more active during work.
Participants also highlighted that in order to engage in physical activity during working hours, they feel like they need permission from their employers and that it is not culturally accepted to just leave your desk in order to reduce your sedentary time.
This appears to result in employees being reluctant to leave their desk for a prolonged period of time, as they want to stay within close proximity of their desk should they be contacted by their employers. This results in employees being less likely to engage in physical activity during their working hours, as they do not want to be away from their desk.
In contrast, employees who were in companies that implemented a “modern management” approach, whereby the work produced was the key performance indicator rather than hours at your desk and where physical activity was valued, seemed to be more likely to reduce their sedentary behaviours throughout their day.
Employees also want management to lead by example and engage in physical activity themselves during work. This creates a sense of freedom amongst employees to reduce their sedentary behaviours as they know it is culturally accepted and will not be frowned upon.
Reducing the stigma surrounding engaging in physical activity during work may be effective in creating opportunities for employees to reduce their sedentary behaviours. This may be augmented by senior management demonstrating to employees that it is acceptable to reduce their sedentary time during work, which in turn will create the freedom for employees.
According to employees, relying on the self-motivation of individuals alone will not be sufficient to create lasting behavioural change, nor do employees think that advice or education alone will work. They want to see employers holding their staff accountable for their sedentary behaviours.
Employees highlighted how previous single-component initiatives to reduce sitting time without an accountability element have not been effective. It appears that the accountability element of an intervention is important, as it reduces the need for self-motivation and provides further incentives for employees to reduce their sedentary behaviours. Without this, employees appear unlikely to change their behaviour through the provision of education/advice alone.
Furthermore, employees also want their efforts to be recognised by the company and rewarded where appropriate. It appears that accountability motivates staff to reduce their sedentary behaviours whilst rewarding their efforts may be important for long-term change.
Accountability and rewards appear to be important in eliciting the desired long-term behaviour change. Accountability seems to reduce reliance on the self-motivation of employees whilst rewarding employees’ efforts is important in motivating them to reduce their sedentary behaviours over a prolonged period.
The unique and isolated nature of working from home means that employees often have very little interaction with colleagues and feel isolated. It appears that during the Covid-19 pandemic, employees tried to combine social interaction with colleagues and physical activity. This appears to have continued in the office environment but does not occur when working from home. Incorporating a social element, such as a walking (online) social call, may be a feasible way of reducing the sedentary behaviours of employees, while also allowing employees to engage with each other and reduce the isolated feeling amongst those working from home
Using social groups may also be a feasible way of creating the accountability that employees also desire. Employees highlighted that participating with or in social groups may motivate them to engage in physical activity more regularly as they use the group dynamics for accountability and motivation.
Leveraging the support of colleagues, in an online capacity, can create a social aspect to physical activity, which is important in the isolated home-office environment and may help hold employees accountable to changing their behaviour long-term.
According to employees, there is currently a lack of trust whilst working from which increases their sedentary behaviours in the home-office compared to the office environment. This themes also shows the desire from employees to normalize active breaks. The lack of boundaries for online meetings is also causing a lack of opportunities for physical activity whilst working from home.
Employees felt that managers do not trust their productivity when working from home. This often results in staff overcompensating on their workload and working longer hours to justify their productivity at home. Furthermore, when working from home, managers often ask employees to complete timesheets and justify their hours, which is usually not required for those working in the office. In comparison, employees feel that when they are in the office, there is less pressure on them and they can reduce their sedentary behaviours much easier, as they have more freedom and trust from there managers.
This stigma surrounding working from home creates a reluctancy for staff to leave their desks in case their manager contacts them and they do not answer. Employees appear to be anxious anytime they leave their desk and keep breaks as short as possible. This working environment creates a lack of opportunities for employees to reduce their sedentary behaviours during their working hours at home compared to the office environment.
Employees are aware that this modality of working is seen as unproductive and as a result, they appear to spend the duration of working from home trying to justify their productivity and show their employers that they do actually work. This results in employees not prioritizing reducing their sedentary behaviours on the days they work from home compared to working in the office.
Organisations need to target reducing the stigma surrounding working from home and how this is seen as an unproductive modality of work. This change will reduce the automatic increase in sedentary behaviours owing to the reluctancy to leave their desk but also create opportunities for physical activity.
Employees want the same freedom that is given in the office when working from home, whereby they can go for coffee or take walking breaks without the anxiety of it being perceived as unproductive. There appears to be an attitude of “we want you in your chair” when working from home that does not exist, or at least not to the same extent, in the office environment.
In addition to the lack of freedom and trust whilst working from home, the open-access nature of diaries, due to the increased use of electronic communication channels (such as Zoom, Teams or instant messaging software), means that employees no longer have control over their schedules. When working from home, online meetings are more prevalent and seem to be a more acceptable modality of communication, which increases the number of online meetings that are often scheduled in a back-to-back nature.
Participating in physical activity during meetings, such as walking online meetings, doesn’t seem to be culturally accepted within organizations, which has a two-fold impact, as it both increases the sedentary time and reduces opportunities for physical activity.
Furthermore, there is an apparent lack of boundaries between personal and work life while working from home. Although this may often be seen as increased flexibility for staff, it means employees now have very little escape from work as they can work whenever and wherever they want. This often results in longer working hours which further increase sedentary behaviours and reduces the likelihood of engaging in physical activity.
The online nature of working from home creates an environment that encourages sedentary behaviours, as employees communicate exclusively online with colleagues compared to physically leaving their desk when they’re in the office. A change in culture which encourages movement, where feasible, during meetings and provides guidelines on work hours may help employees reduce their sedentary behaviours.
Employees cited time as one of the main reasons for not being able to reduce their sedentary behaviours whilst working from home. This appears to be attributable to two primary reasons. Firstly, due to the demanding schedule mentioned in a previous sub-theme, employees find it hard to create time/opportunities for physical activity. Many employees felt that, due to their busier schedules whilst working from home compared to the office, they wouldn’t be able to create the time to reduce their sedentary behaviours.
Secondly, in addition to the stigma of working from home, there also appears to be a stigma surrounding physical activity during work hours, whereby employees feel it is frowned upon to engage in physical activity at work. Many employees stated that in order for them to engage in physical activity in their current work environment, it would need to be very short in duration or else it would neither be feasible nor acceptable for the company.
Providing employees with physical activity options/strategies that are short in duration (maximum 2-3 min) is a feasible solution to overcome the issue of time. Furthermore, employees need to know that their organisations encourage and support them reducing their sedentary behaviours. For example, managers providing messages of encouragement to employees may help employees feel like they have the permission to create opportunities for, and engage in, physical activity whilst they are working from home.
This theme highlights the need for the provision of education to employees on the health implications of high levels of sitting during work that go beyond the musculoskeletal symptoms often experienced with prolonged occupational sitting. Furthermore, employees want to know how they can change their behaviour long-term.
The vast majority of employees stated that they know they shouldn’t have high levels of sedentary behaviours, but lacked a true understanding as to why they should try to reduce their sedentary time. Furthermore, the lack of clarity around how often they should interrupt their sitting time is causing confusion. Participants often stated that they would only reduce their sedentary behaviours when they experience physical symptoms, such as back or eye problems, and do not consider trying to interrupt this for the positive health outcomes, such as a reduced risk of many non-communicable disease which go beyond the alleviation of physical symptom.
Furthermore, employees are unaware of the benefits of short active breaks to interrupt their sedentary behaviours. It is apparent that employees feel that in order for physical activity to elicit positive health outcomes, it needs to be long in duration and of a relatively high intensity and are unaware of the positive impact of fragmenting their sedentary behaviour as often as possible.
Providing employees with education on the positive health outcomes associated with short active breaks may be effective in encouraging them to interrupt their sedentary behaviours regularly. This may help overcome the issue of seeing physical activity as something that needs to be long in duration and of a high intensity, which may be discouraging to employees, particularly those who do not exercise regularly.
Most participants stated that they do not know how to change their behavior positively in the long-term. It is evident that employees have made several attempts to alter their behaviours in the past, but these efforts have only been successful in the short-term. Despite their initial successes, they have struggled to maintain these changes over an extended period. They understand the importance of reducing their sedentary behaviours but remain uncertain about the most effective long-term strategies to achieve this. Additionally, they feel that they need comprehensive support and guidance to help them make and sustain these behavioural changes over time.
To change sedentary behaviours over a prolonged period, employees felt that they need to be kept interested and a novelty aspect to behavior change be maintained, as they have previously become accustomed to attempts in changing their behavior relatively quickly, which resulted in a loss of interest and reverting back to their previous behaviours.
It is evident that for a successful reduction in the sedentary behaviours of employees to persist over a prolonged period, they need strategies that provide education on the most successful ways of maintaining this reduction longitudinally rather than acutely. Keeping employees interested by maintaining a novelty aspect may be central to a successful change long-term.
