Changes in work affect in response to lunchtime walking in previously physically inactive employees: A randomized trial

Abstract

Physical activity may regulate affective experiences at work, but controlled studies are needed and there has been a reliance on retrospective accounts of experience. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of lunchtime walks on momentary work affect at the individual and group levels. Physically inactive employees (N = 56; M age = 47.68; 92.86% female) from a large university in the UK were randomized to immediate treatment or delayed treatment (DT). The DT participants completed both a control and intervention period. During the intervention period, participants partook in three weekly 30‐min lunchtime group‐led walks for 10 weeks. They completed twice daily affective reports at work (morning and afternoon) using mobile phones on two randomly chosen days per week. Multilevel modeling was used to analyze the data. Lunchtime walks improved enthusiasm, relaxation, and nervousness at work, although the pattern of results differed depending on whether between‐group or within‐person analyses were conducted. The intervention was effective in changing some affective states and may have broader implications for public health and workplace performance.

Psychosocial effects of workplace exercise – A systematic review

“…Most studies (N=17) (24,25,(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47) were conducted in Europe, the rest in North America (48,49), Japan (50,51), and Australia (52). The workplace settings varied from employees working in office/having administrative tasks (N=10) (34,35,37,38,41,43,(47)(48)(49)52), to health personnel in hospitals/nursing homes (N=5) (25,33,44,46,50), to laboratory technicians (N=2) (39,42), to other manual job settings or workplaces with a mix of work tasks (N=5) (24,36,40,45,51). Sample size ranged from 24-860 participants, with a total of 4010 participants throughout the studies.…”

“…Sample size ranged from 24-860 participants, with a total of 4010 participants throughout the studies. The majority of studies (N=12) (25,33,34,36,38,40,42,43,46,(50)(51)(52) were based on healthy workers, three studies (24,39,48) examined workers with musculoskeletal problems, three studies (41,45,49) looked at sedentary/physical inactive workers, two studies (35,47) included workers with light mental health complaints, one study (37) looked at workers with both mental and/or musculoskeletal complaints, and another (44) examined high aged workers. The exercise interventions consisted of a wide range of different exercises offered from 6-86 weeks (21 months), with most studies offering an intervention period ranging from 8-12 weeks (24, 25, 33-37, 39, 47, 48, 50-52) N=13.…”

“…The exercise interventions consisted of a wide range of different exercises offered from 6-86 weeks (21 months), with most studies offering an intervention period ranging from 8-12 weeks (24, 25, 33-37, 39, 47, 48, 50-52) N=13. Interventions could be subdivided into cardio/aerobics (N=3) (35,36,46), strength/resistance (N=6) (24,25,33,40,42,43), yoga (41,47), and a mix in seven (34,39,(42)(43)(44)(45)49). Many studies were designed with an active reference group, offering an alternative exercise (24,25,33,34,36,43,49).…”

“…Only four studies (35,38,45,47) had psychosocial outcomes as their primary outcomes. In ten (24,25,33,34,39,41,42,46,50,52), it appeared as secondary outcome whereas it was one equal outcome among others in eight studies (36,37,40,43,44,48,49,51).…”

“…All studies performed between group statistical analysis and included sufficient description of which methods were used in the study. Most studies measured outcomes two times: at baseline and at the end of the intervention period, a single study [Thøgersen et al (45)] measured continuously through mobile phones twice a week during the intervention period.…”