An Evaluation of Physical Activity Levels amongst University Employees

Ayazullah Safi,Matthew Cole,Natalie C Walker,Adam L Kelly

doi:10.4236/ape.2021.112012

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 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.

Highlights

Despite the well-known benefits of physical activity (PA) such as reducing the risk of coronary heart disease, diabetes, obesity, musculoskeletal disorders, anxiety and depression (Church et al, 2011; Griffiths, Mackey, Adamson, & Pepper, 2012; Van Uffelen et al, 2010; Kelley, Kelley, & Callahan, 2018; Rebar et al, 2015) yet approximately 60% of the world’s population fail to accumulate adequate PA levels (Rentería & Morris, 2017)
Results revealed that males participated in more total moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA), across all four domains of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire Long Form (IPAQ-LF), compared to females
There was no significant difference between males and females for work MVPA (U = 17.563.000 z = −0.060, p = 0.952 and U = 17,524.000 z = 0.101, p = 0.919)

Summary

Introduction

Despite the well-known benefits of physical activity (PA) such as reducing the risk of coronary heart disease, diabetes, obesity, musculoskeletal disorders, anxiety and depression (Church et al, 2011; Griffiths, Mackey, Adamson, & Pepper, 2012; Van Uffelen et al, 2010; Kelley, Kelley, & Callahan, 2018; Rebar et al, 2015) yet approximately 60% of the world’s population fail to accumulate adequate PA levels (Rentería & Morris, 2017). The World Health Organisation (WHO) PA guidelines suggest that adults should engage in a minimum of 150 minutes of moderate to vigorously physical activities, alongside undertaking muscle-strengthening exercises twice a week. Previous research reported that adults spent approximately 60% - 70% of their waking time in the workplace, with over 75% of this time spent being sedentary (Clemes et al, 2015; Edge, Cooper, & Coffey, 2017; Healy, Matthews, Dunstan, Winkler, & Owen, 2011; Waters et al, 2016). Workplaces, including office-based jobs in particular, involve minimum physical movements during the working days, which may increase the risk of health related diseases. Physical inactivity and prolonged sitting can negatively affect the circulation and the use of muscles and bones (Dunstan, Howard, Healy, & Owen, 2012; Smith et al, 2015). From a fiscal point of view, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) reported that sickness absences cost the UK economy more than £14 billion a year (CBI, 2016), whilst the Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures for 2017 estimated that 131.2 million working days were lost due to sickness and injury (ONS, 2017)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion