↓ Skip to main content

Physical activity and relaxation in the work setting to reduce the need for recovery: what works for whom?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
209 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Physical activity and relaxation in the work setting to reduce the need for recovery: what works for whom?
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3457-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Margriet A. G. Formanoy, Elise Dusseldorp, Jennifer K. Coffeng, Iven Van Mechelen, Cecile R. L. Boot, Ingrid J. M. Hendriksen, Erwin C. P. M. Tak

Abstract

To recover from work stress, a worksite health program aimed at improving physical activity and relaxation may be valuable. However, not every program is effective for all participants, as would be expected within a "one size fits all" approach. The effectiveness of how the program is delivered may differ across individuals. The aim of this study was to identify subgroups for whom one intervention may be better suited than another by using a new method called QUalitative INteraction Trees (QUINT). Data were used from the "Be Active & Relax" study, in which 329 office workers participated. Two delivery modes of a worksite health program were given, a social environmental intervention (group motivational interviewing delivered by team leaders) and a physical environmental intervention (environmental modifications). The main outcome was change in Need for Recovery (NFR) from baseline to 12 month follow-up. The QUINT method was used to identify subgroups that benefitted more from either type of delivery mode, by incorporating moderator variables concerning sociodemographic, health, home, and work-related characteristics of the participants. The mean improvement in NFR of younger office workers in the social environmental intervention group was significantly higher than younger office workers who did not receive the social environmental intervention (10.52; 95 % CI: 4.12, 16.92). Furthermore, the mean improvement in NFR of older office workers in the social environmental intervention group was significantly lower than older office workers who did not receive the social environmental intervention ( -10.65; 95 % CI: -19.35, -1.96). The results for the physical environmental intervention indicated that the mean improvement in NFR of office workers (regardless of age) who worked fewer hours overtime was significantly higher when they had received the physical environmental intervention than when they had not received this type of intervention (7.40; 95 % CI: 0.99, 13.81). Finally, for office workers who worked more hours overtime there was no effect of the physical environmental intervention. The results suggest that a social environmental intervention might be more beneficial for younger workers, and a physical environmental intervention might be more beneficial for employees with a few hours overtime to reduce the NFR. NTR2553.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 208 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 11%
Student > Bachelor 23 11%
Researcher 15 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Other 35 17%
Unknown 65 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 27 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 11%
Psychology 22 11%
Sports and Recreations 19 9%
Social Sciences 15 7%
Other 33 16%
Unknown 70 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 June 2021.
All research outputs
#6,058,273
of 24,917,903 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#6,019
of 16,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,610
of 349,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#158
of 412 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,917,903 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,577 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 349,233 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 412 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.