Physical activity reduces the risk of several noncommunicable diseases, and a number of studies have found self-reported physical activity to be associated with sickness absence. The aim of this study was to examine if cardiorespiratory fitness, device-measured physical activity, and sedentary behaviour were associated with sickness absence among office workers. Participants were recruited from two Swedish companies. Data on sickness absence (frequency and duration) and covariates were collected via questionnaires. Physical activity pattern was assessed using ActiGraph and activPAL, and fitness was estimated from submaximal cycle ergometry. The sample consisted of 159 office workers (67% women, aged 43 ± 8 years). Higher cardiorespiratory fitness was significantly associated with a lower odds ratio (OR) for both sickness absence duration (OR = 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87–0.96) and frequency (OR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.90–0.97). Sedentary time was positively associated with higher odds of sickness absence frequency (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.99–1.08). No associations were found for physical activity at any intensity level and sickness absence. Higher sickness absence was found among office workers with low cardiorespiratory fitness and more daily time spent sedentary. In contrast to reports using self-reported physical activity, device-measured physical activity was not associated with sickness absence.

PurposeThe aim of the study is to examine to what extent human service work and family caregiving is associated with emotional exhaustion and sickness absence, and to what extent combining human service work and family caregiving is associated with additional odds. Methods Data were derived from participants in paid work from the Swedish Longitudinal Occupational Survey of Health, year 2016 (n = 11 951). Logistic regression analyses were performed and odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals estimated for the association between human service work and family caregiving, respectively, as well as combinations of the two on one hand, and emotional exhaustion and self-reported sickness absence on the other hand. Interaction between human service work and family caregiving was assessed as departure from additivity with Rothman's synergy index. Results Human service work was not associated with higher odds of emotional exhaustion, but with higher odds of sickness absence. Providing childcare was associated with higher odds of emotional exhaustion, but lower odds of sickness absence, and caring for a relative was associated with higher odds of both emotional exhaustion and sickness absence. There was no indication of an additive interaction between human service work and family caregiving in relation to neither emotional exhaustion nor sickness absence. Conclusions We did not find support for the common assumption that long hours providing service and care for others by combining human service work with family caregiving can explain the higher risk of sickness absence or emotional exhaustion among employees in human service occupations.

Background The importance of physical activity on health is clear, but changing behaviour is difficult. Successful interventions aiming to improve physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour is therefore of importance. The aim of this study was to evaluate effects on motivation, self-efficacy and barriers to change behaviour from two different behavioural intervention focusing either on reducing sedentary behaviour or on increasing physical activity as compared to a waiting list control group. Methods The study was designed as a cluster randomized control trial (RCT) within two private companies. Self-efficacy, motivation and perceived barriers were together with demographic variables assessed before and after a 6-month intervention. Participant cluster teams were randomly allocated to either the physical activity intervention (iPA), the sedentary behaviour intervention (iSED), or control group. The intervention was multi componential and included motivational counselling based on Cognitive behaviour therapy and Motivational interviewing, group activities and management involvement. Group differences were determined using Bayesian multilevel modelling (parameter estimate; credible interval (CI)), analysing complete cases and those who adhered to the protocol by adhering to at least 3 out of 5 intervention sessions. Results After the intervention, the complete cases analysis showed that the iPA group had significantly higher autonomous motivation (0.33, CI: 0.05–0.61) and controlled motivation (0.27, CI: 0.04–0.51) for physical activity compared with the control group. The iSED group scored less autonomous and controlled motivation compared to the iPA group (0.38, CI: − 0.69- -0.087 respectively − 0.32, CI: − 0.57-0.07) but no significant differences compared with the control group. Among individuals that adhered to the protocol, the results showed higher scores on Exercise (3.03, CI: 0.28–6.02) and Sedentary self-efficacy (3.59, CI: 0.35–7.15) for individuals in the iPA group and on Sedentary self-efficacy (4.77, CI: 0.59–9.44) for the iSED group compared to the control group. Conclusion These findings indicate that the interventions were successful in increasing self-efficacy in each intervention group and autonomous motivation for exercise in the iPA group, in particular when actively participating in the motivational counselling sessions.

No abstract

Background The importance of physical activity on health is clear, but changing behaviour is difficult. Successful interventions aiming to improve physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour is therefore of importance. The aim of this study was to evaluate effects on motivation, self-efficacy and barriers to change behaviour from two different behavioral intervention focusing either on reducing sedentary behaviour or on increasing physical activity as compared to a waiting list control group Methods The study was designed as a cluster randomized control trial (RCT) within two private companies. Self-efficacy, motivation and perceived barriers were together with demographic variables assessed before and after a 6-month intervention. Participants were assigned a cluster team which was randomly allocated to either the physical activity intervention (iPA), the sedentary behaviour intervention (iSED), or control group. Group differences were determined using Bayesian multilevel modelling (parameter estimate; credible interval (CI)), analysing complete cases and those who adhered to the protocol by adhering to at least 3 out of 5 intervention sessions. Results After the intervention, the complete cases analysis showed that the iPA group had significantly higher autonomous motivation (0.33, CI: 0.05–0.61) and controlled motivation (0.27, CI: 0.04–0.51) for physical activity compared with the control group, and the iSED group scored less autonomous and controlled motivation compared to the iPA group (0.38, CI: -0.69- -0.087 respectively − 0.32, CI: -0.57-0.07). Among individuals that adhered to the protocol, the results showed higher scores on Exercise (3.03, CI: 0.28–6.02) and Sedentary self-efficacy (3.59, CI: 0.35–7.15) for individuals in the iPA group and on Sedentary self-efficacy (4.77, CI: 0.59–9.44) for the iSED group compared to the control group. Conclusion These findings indicate that the interventions were successful in increasing self-efficacy in each intervention group and autonomous motivation for exercise in the iPA group, in particular when actively participating in the motivational counselling sessions.