An Evaluation of Physical Activity Levels amongst University Employees

Abstract

Approximately 60% of the world's population do not meet the physical activity (PA) guidelines. Physical inactivity is increasing in occupations, with work-related health issues becoming more prevalent. University employees' work in a range of job roles and PA levels in this population is unclear. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate PA levels amongst university employees in a UK Higher Education institution. Four hundred employees (male = 131, female = 269) partook in this quantitative study and completed an online International Physical Activity Questionnaire Long Form (IPAQ-LF) to assess total moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA) and work-related MVPA. A Mann-Whitney U test examined differences in total MVPA and work-related MVPA between genders and a Kruskal-Wallis H test examined differences in total MVPA and work related MVPA between job roles. The findings showed that university employees engaged in a median of 330 minutes and 1770 METs of MVPA across all domains of IPAQ-LF. Further, the median time spent in total work PA was 30 minutes and 123 METs. There was a significant difference between genders, as males engaged in 150 minutes more total MVPA compared to females (p < 0.05). No significant differences were found in total MVPA and work-related MVPA across job roles (p > 0.05). Findings suggest that job role does not affect PA levels within university workplace, although they do propose that males engage in more MVPA compared to females. As a result of the subjective nature of this research, objective research is required to confirm current findings.

A Comparison of Physical Activity and Sedentary Lifestyle of University Employees through ActiGraph and IPAQ-LF

“…Although employees spent most of their time being sedentary and this was consistent between genders, the findings indicated that females were spending a substantial amount of time being sedentary, which could undesirably affect their health and wellbeing. Overall, the outcome of this study in line with previous research supports the hypothesis that male were more active than females (Lindsay et al, 2016;Olney et al, 2018;Sallis et al, 2016;Safi et al, 2021). Further investigation to rationalise the comparative differences and reasons behind the discrepancies reported by males and females are required.…”

“…The significant differences between job roles shows that academic staff engaged in greater light PA and MVPA than the administration and professional services staff. This could be due to the job roles of academics as they were more likely to conduct light PA through their daily responsibilities, including walking to and from the lectures, practical sessions, and student engagement activities (Safi et al, 2021). Whereas, the administration and professional services staff are required to be presented at their desk, which may contribute to their lack of engagement in light PA and MVPA.…”

“…The secondary aim of this research was to attain a greater insight into the Safi et al Physical Activity and Health DOI: 10.5334/paah.163 potential differences between accelerometer and IPAQ-LF tools undertaken in this study when recordings PA and SL. Drawing from the recent research by Safi et al (2021) it was hypothesised that male employees would engage in more PA than females. It was also hypothesised that university staff such as academic would participate in more PA compared to office-based roles such as professional services and administrative staff.…”

Workplace Physical Activity Barriers and Facilitators: A Qualitative Study Based on Employees Physical Activity Levels

“…Following an institutional ethical approval, participants were recruited via an opportunistic sample using those who had participated in earlier studies of a broader piece of research from a UK higher education institution (university workplace) [ 32 , 33 ]. From the original pool of 259 participants who signed up to be contacted, 221 employees (85%) replied expressing their interest in the present study.…”

“…Table 1 provides the breakdown of total participants who attended a focus group interviews. The inclusion criteria were that all participants had to be adults (>18 years old), currently employed by the participant university, and had participated in earlier studies [ 32 , 33 ].…”