Table 1.
Characteristics of champions, teams and workplaces/organisations participating in the trial
| Characteristic | Category / (units or range) | All trial participants | Champions leading teams only | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | M(SD) or n(%) | M(SD) or n(%) | |||
| Champion characteristics | |||||
| Location (State) | New South Wales | 118 | 20 (16.9%) | 94 | 17 (18.1%) |
| Australian Capital Territory | 5 (4.2%) | 5 (5.3%) | |||
| Victoria | 20 (16.9%) | 14 (14.9%) | |||
| Queensland | 56 (47.5%) | 43 (45.7%) | |||
| South Australia | 8 (6.8%) | 7 (7.4%) | |||
| Western Australia | 7 (5.9%) | 6 (6.4%) | |||
| Tasmania | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (1.1%) | |||
| Northern Territory | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (1.1%) | |||
| Postcode SES a | Australian Percentile (1-100) | 118 | 68.2 (27.5) | 94 | 69.9 (27.0) |
| State Percentile (1-100) | 118 | 67.6 (26.7) | 94 | 69.3 (26.3) | |
| Age | (years) | 116 | 42.9 (11.0) | 94 | 43.4 (11.1) |
| Female | Yes | 116 | 88 (75.9%) | 94 | 73 (77.7%) |
| Job classification | Employee | 116 | 53 (45.7%) | 94 | 40 (42.6%) |
| Middle management | 116 | 45 (38.8%) | 94 | 38 (40.4%) | |
| Upper management | 116 | 18 (15.5%) | 94 | 16 (17.0%) | |
| Occupational Health and Safety Role (Yes) | 116 | 76 (65.5%) | 94 | 60 (63.8%) | |
| Prior Workplace Health Promotion Training (Yes) | 116 | 66 (56.9%) | 94 | 55 (58.5%) | |
| Prior Workplace Health Promotion Experience (Yes) | 116 | 42 (36.2%) | 94 | 32 (34.0%) | |
| Referred to BeUpstanding by … (multiples apply) | |||||
| Article / Publication / Newsletter | 116 | 16 (13.8%) | 94 | 13 (13.8%) | |
| Internet / Website | 116 | 28 (24.1%) | 94 | 20 (21.3%) | |
| Seminar / Presentation / Conference | 116 | 15 (12.9%) | 94 | 14 (14.9%) | |
| Social Media / TV / Radio | 116 | 4 (3.4%) | 94 | 3 (3.2%) | |
| Colleague | 116 | 38 (32.8%) | 94 | 31 (33.0%) | |
| Other word of mouth | 116 | 13 (11.2%) | 94 | 12 (12.8%) | |
| General Workplace | 116 | 1 (0.9%) | 94 | 1 (1.1%) | |
| Health & Safety Organisation | 116 | 2 (1.7%) | 94 | 2 (2.1%) | |
| 116 | 1 (0.9%) | 94 | 1 (1.1%) | ||
| Other source | 116 | 5 (4.3%) | 94 | 4 (4.3%) | |
| Team characteristics | |||||
| Team Size b | 94 | 29.4 (32.1) | 94 | 29.4 (32.1) | |
| Team Size Category | 1–10 | 94 | 30 (31.9%) | 94 | 30 (31.9%) |
| 11–20 | 94 | 27 (28.7%) | 94 | 27 (28.7%) | |
| > 20 | 94 | 37 (39.4%) | 94 | 37 (39.4%) | |
| Current participation in other workplace health promotion program (Yes) | 116 | 31 (26.7%) | 94 | 23 (24.5%) | |
| Interest in Health c | (1–5) | 116 | 3.4 (0.7) | 94 | 3.4 (0.7) |
| Motivation to Sit Less c | (1–5) | 116 | 3.1 (0.7) | 94 | 3.2 (0.7) |
| Stress c | (1–5) | 116 | 3.3 (0.6) | 94 | 3.2 (0.5) |
| Regional/remote staff included (Yes) d | 116 | 41 (35.3%) | 94 | 32 (34.0%) | |
| Call-centre staff included (Yes) e | 118 | 6 (5.1%) | 94 | 6 (6.4%) | |
| Main Location (State) f | New South Wales | 103 | 20 (19.4%) | 94 | 17 (18.1%) |
| Australian Capital Territory | 5 (4.9%) | 5 (5.3%) | |||
| Victoria | 17 (16.5%) | 14 (14.9%) | |||
| Queensland | 46 (44.7%) | 43 (45.7%) | |||
| South Australia | 7 (6.8%) | 7 (7.4%) | |||
| Western Australia | 6 (5.8%) | 6 (6.4%) | |||
| Tasmania | 1 (1.0%) | 1 (1.1%) | |||
| Northern Territory | 1 (1.0%) | 1 (1.1%) | |||
| Workplace or organisation | |||||
| Organisation Size | Small (< 20) | 118 | 11 (9.3%) | 94 | 11 (11.7%) |
| Medium (20–199) | 17 (14.4%) | 13 (13.8%) | |||
| Large (200–1999) | 34 (28.8%) | 24 (25.5%) | |||
| Very large (2000+) | 56 (47.5%) | 46 (48.9%) | |||
| Small-medium enterprise | Yes | 118 | 28 (23.7%) | 94 | 24 (25.5%) |
| Sector | Public | 118 | 62 (52.5%) | 94 | 48 (51.1%) |
| Non-profit | 19 (16.1%) | 14 (14.9%) | |||
| Private | 37 (31.4%) | 32 (34.0%) | |||
| Blue-collar workplace g | Yes | 118 | 40 (33.9%) | 94 | 33 (35.1%) |
| COVID-19 impact h | None | 118 | 6 (5.1%) | 94 | 6 (6.4%) |
| General | 66 (55.9%) | 53 (56.4%) | |||
| High | 46 (39.0%) | 35 (37.2%) | |||
| Organisational readiness i | 3.8 (0.6) | 3.8 (0.6) | |||
| Context | (1–5) | 99 | 3.8 (0.6) | 94 | 3.8 (0.6) |
| Change effort | (0–1) | 100 | 0.4 (0.4) | 94 | 0.4 (0.4) |
| Change efficacy | (1–5) | 116 | 4.1 (0.5) | 94 | 4.1 (0.5) |
| Main industry of organisation j | Administrative and Support Services | 118 | 6 (5.1%) | 94 | 6 (6.4%) |
| Agriculture / Forestry and Fishing | 4 (3.4%) | 2 (2.1%) | |||
| Construction | 6 (5.1%) | 6 (6.4%) | |||
| Education and Training | 6 (5.1%) | 6 (6.4%) | |||
| Electricity / Gas / Water and Waste Services | 8 (6.8%) | 7 (7.4%) | |||
| Financial and Insurance Services | 4 (3.4%) | 3 (3.2%) | |||
| Health Care and Social Assistance | 29 (24.6%) | 20 (21.3%) | |||
| Manufacturing | 9 (7.6%) | 8 (8.5%) | |||
| Other Services | 8 (6.8%) | 8 (8.5%) | |||
| Professional / Scientific and Technical Services | 22 (18.6%) | 16 (17.0%) | |||
| Public Administration and Safety | 7 (5.9%) | 6 (6.4%) | |||
| Retail Trade | 2 (1.7%) | 2 (2.1%) | |||
| Transport / Postal and Warehousing | 7 (5.9%) | 4 (4.3%) | |||
Characteristics of organisations, workplaces, and teams were collected from as many of the champions as possible and linked to each team mostly by using data from the team’s primary champion, or if unavailable, from another co-champion for the team, an overseer with knowledge of all the teams, or any other suitable respondent from that workplace
a SES = Socioeconomic Status (postal area level Index of Relative Economic Advantage and Disadvantage in national and state percentiles) [58].
b estimated by champions, and periodically updated by project staff during implementation checks as champions evolved their concept of who their team would be
c champion perception when signing up of team’s current level (1 = worst response to 5 = best response)
d some or all of the team were in regional or remote work locations as reported by champions or ascertained from staff or champion workplace postcodes
e some or all of the team were call-centre staff according to the champion
f the primary state in which the team is located, calculated from champion and staff-reported workplace postcodes
g classified from the reported industry, or by champion report of a blue-collar workplace where the industry was mixed
h those participating prior to COVID-19 were treated as no impact. General impact (e.g., working from home) was assigned where there was no evidence of a high impact (decided subjectively). Severe impacts (e.g., job losses, shutdown of core business) reported by the champion, an impact strong enough to prevent participation, being located in Victoria where extended lockdowns occurred, or being part of sectors hard hit delivering healthcare or COVID-19 response schemes all qualified as high impact
i higher scores are beneficial [59]
j main industry of the organisation according to the 19 standard ANZIC categories [38]