Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The workplace represents an important setting for increasing physical activity levels. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship between the workplace environment and leisure-time physical activity, using a nationally representative sample of the Canadian population.
METHODS: This study used cross-sectional, self-reported data from 48,916 participants who completed relevant questions on the 2008 Canadian Community Health Survey. Associations between supportive workplace environments for physical activity (e.g., perceived range of amenities available such as a pleasant place to walk, fitness facility, showers, and health program) and leisure-time physical activity level (active, moderately active, inactive) were examined using multinomial logistic regression.
RESULTS: Approximately three quarters (n=36,216) of participants had access to at least one amenity that supported physical activity while at work. Females in the lowest age category (18–35 years) who perceived a more supportive workplace environment for physical activity had higher odds of being moderately active (AOR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04–1.08) and active (AOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.13–1.17) as compared to inactive in their leisure time. The strength of this association was slightly higher with age and for males.
CONCLUSIONS: Since the majority of Canadian adults do not meet recommended levels of physical activity, the workplace offers a promising and modifiable target for increasing opportunities to be physically active. Employers who can provide a more supportive workplace environment for physical activity would benefit, as it can increase employees’ physical activity levels and ultimately improve their productivity and overall health. These benefits may be increased for males and with employees’ age.
Key words: Exercise, workplace, environment, public health
Résumé
OBJECTIF: Le lieu de travail est l’un des principaux endroits où accroître les niveaux d’activité physique. Nous avons voulu étudier le lien entre l’environnement de travail et l’activité physique pendant les loisirs à l’aide d’un échantillon national représentatif de la population canadienne.
MÉTHODE: Notre étude fait appel aux données transversales autodéclarées de 48 916 personnes ayant répondu aux questions pertinentes de l’Enquête sur la santé dans les collectivités canadiennes de 2008. Nous avons examiné par régression logistique multinomiale les associations entre les environnements de travail propices à l’activité physique (le choix perçu de commodités disponibles, comme un endroit agréable où marcher, des installations de conditionnement physique, des douches et un programme de santé) et les niveaux d’activité physique pendant les loisirs (activité, activité modérée, inactivité).
RÉSULTATS: Environ les trois quarts (n=36 216) des répondants avaient accès à au moins une commodité favorisant l’activité physique au travail. Les femmes de la catégorie d’âge inférieure (18–35 ans) qui jugeaient avoir un environnement de travail plus propice à l’activité physique présentaient une plus forte probabilité d’être modérément actives (RCa 1,06, IC de 95 % 1,04–1,08) ou actives (RCa 1,15, IC de 95 % 1,13–1,17) plutôt qu’inactives dans leurs temps libres. La force de cette association augmentait légèrement avec l’âge, et elle était légèrement plus élevée chez les hommes.
CONCLUSION: Étant donné que la majorité des adultes canadiens sont en-deçà des niveaux d’activité physique recommandés, le lieu de travail offre une cible prometteuse et modifiable pour accroître les occasions d’être actif. Les employeurs qui peuvent fournir un environnement de travail plus propice à l’activité physique en profiteraient, car cela ferait augmenter les niveaux d’activité physique des employés et, en bout de ligne, améliorerait leur productivité et leur santé globale. Ces avantages pourraient être accrus pour les hommes et augmenter avec l’âge des employés.
Mots clés: exercice physique, lieu de travail, environnement, santé publique
Footnotes
Acknowledgements of Support: Ms. Watts was supported by doctoral funding from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the CIHR Training Grant in Population Intervention for Chronic Disease Prevention: A Pan-Canadian Program (Grant #: 53893), and the Danone Institute of Canada. Dr. Mâsse received salary support from the Child and Family Research Institute, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, and the Sunny Hill Foundation for Children. Special thanks to Dr. Mieke Koehoorn, School of Population and Public Health at the University of British Columbia, for providing input in the development of this paper.
Conflict of Interest: None to declare.
References
- 1.Colley RC, Garriguet D, Janssen I, Craig CI, Clarke J, Tremblay MS. Physical activity of Canadian adults: Accelerometer results from the 2007 to 2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey. Health Reports. 2011;22(1):1–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Tremblay MS, Warburton DER, Janssen I, Paterson DH, Latimer AE, Rhodes RE, et al. New Canadian physical activity guidelines. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2011;36(1):36–58. doi: 10.1139/H11-009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Canadian FitnessLifestyle Research Institute. 2008 Physical Activity Monitor: Physical Activity Levels of Canadians. 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 4.WHO. Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health. 2010. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Warburton DER, Nicol CW, Bredin SSD. Health benefits of physical activity: The evidence. CMAJ. 2006;174(6):801–9. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.051351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Katzmarzyk P, Lear S. Physical activity for obese individuals: A systematic review of effects on chronic disease risk factors. Obes Rev. 2012;13(2):95–105. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00933.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Booth F, Laye M, Lees S, Rector R, Thyfault J. Reduced physical activity and risk of chronic disease: The biology behind the consequences. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008;102:381–90. doi: 10.1007/s00421-007-0606-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Spence JC, Lee RE. Toward a comprehensive model of physical activity. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2003;4(1):7–24. doi: 10.1016/S1469-0292(02)00014-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Duncan MJ, Spence JC, Mummery WK. Perceived environment and physical activity: A meta-analysis of selected environmental characteristics. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2005;2(11):1–9. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-2-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD, Cain KL, Conway TL, Chapman JE, et al. Neighborhood environment and psychosocial correlates of adults’ physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(4):637–46. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318237fe18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Sallis JF, Bowles HR, Bauman A, Ainsworth BE, Bull FC, Craig CL, et al. Neighborhood environments and physical activity among adults in 11 countries. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(6):484–90. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Lucove JC, Huston SL, Evenson KR. Workers’ perceptions about worksite policies and environments and their association with leisure-time physical activity. Am J Health Promot. 2007;21(3):196–200. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-21.3.196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Prodaniuk TR, Plotnikoff RC, Spence JC, Wilson PM. The influence of self-efficacy and outcome expectations on the relationship between perceived environment and physical activity in the workplace. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2004;1(7):1–11. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-1-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Umstattd MR, Baller SL, Blunt GH, Darst ML. Correlates of perceived worksite environmental support for physical activity. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8(Suppl2):S222–S227. doi: 10.1123/jpah.8.s2.s222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Crespo NC, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Saelens BE, Frank LD. Worksite physical activity policies and environments in relation to employee physical activity. Am J Health Promot. 2011;25(4):264–71. doi: 10.4278/ajhp.081112-QUAN-280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.HRSDC. Indicators of Well-being in Canada. 2011. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Cancelliere C, Cassidy JD, Ammendolia C, Côté P. Are workplace health promotion programs effective at improving presenteeism in workers? A systematic review and best evidence synthesis of the literature. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:395. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-395. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.van Engbers LH, Poppel MNM, Chin A, van Paw MJM, Mechelen W. Worksite health promotion programs with environmental changes: A systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2005;29(1):61–70. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Verweij LM, van Coffeng J, Mechelen W, Proper KI. Meta-analyses of workplace physical activity and dietary behaviour interventions on weight outcomes. Obes Rev. 2011;12(6):406–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2010.00765.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Public Health Agency of Canada. Best Practices & Recommendations in Worksite Health Promotion. 2007. [Google Scholar]
- 21.PHAC. Active Living in Canadian Workplaces. 2011. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Conn VS, Hafdahl AR, Cooper PS, Brown LM, Lusk SL. Meta-analysis of workplace physical activity interventions. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37(4):330–39. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.06.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Statistics Canada. Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Jacobs DR, Jr, Ainsworth BE, Hartman TJ, Leon AS. A simultaneous evaluation of 10 commonly used physical activity questionnaires. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993;25(1):81–91. doi: 10.1249/00005768-199301000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Whitt MC, Irwin ML, Swartz AM, Strath SJ, et al. Compendium of physical activities: An update of activity codes and MET intensities. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(Suppl9):S498–S504. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200009001-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Tremblay MS, Bryan SN, Pérez CE, Ardern CI, Katzmarzyk PT. Physical activity and immigrant status: Evidence from the Canadian Community Health Survey. Can J Public Health. 2006;97(4):277–82. doi: 10.1007/BF03405603. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Prince SA, Kristjansson EA, Russell K, Billette J-M, Sawada MC, Ali A, et al. Relationships between neighborhoods, physical activity, and obesity: A multilevel analysis of a large Canadian city. Obesity. 2012;20(10):2093–100. doi: 10.1038/oby.2011.392. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Katzmarzyk PT, Tremblay MS. Limitations of Canada’s physical activity data: Implications for monitoring trends. Can J Public Health. 2007;98(Suppl2):S185–S194. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Statistics Canada. Canada’s Changing Labour Force, 2006 Census: Findings. 2009. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Vittinghoff E, Glidden DV, Shiboski SC, McCulloch CE. Regression Methods in Biostatistics: Linear, Logistic, Survival, and Repeated Measures Models. New York, NY: Springer; 2005. pp. 141–45. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Humpel N, Owen N, Leslie E. Environmental factors associated with adults’ participation in physical activity: A review. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22(3):188–99. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(01)00426-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Troped PJ, Wilson JS, Matthews CE, Cromley EK, Melly SJ. The built environment and location-based physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38(4):429–38. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.12.032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.McCormack GR, Shiell A. In search of causality: A systematic review of the relationship between the built environment and physical activity among adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8(125):1–31. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Pyper W. Aging, Health and Work. Perspectives on Labour and Income (75-001-XIE) Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada; 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Smith P, Frank J, Mustard C. Trends in educational inequalities in smoking and physical activity in Canada: 1974–2005. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009;63(4):317–23. doi: 10.1136/jech.2008.078204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Cerin E, Leslie E. How socio-economic status contributes to participation in leisure-time physical activity. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(12):2596–609. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.02.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]