Article Text

Download PDFPDF

A worksite vitality intervention to improve older workers' lifestyle and vitality-related outcomes: results of a randomised controlled trial
  1. Jorien E Strijk1,
  2. Karin I Proper1,2,
  3. Allard J van der Beek1,2,
  4. Willem van Mechelen1,2
  1. 1Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  2. 2Body@Work, Research Center Physical Activity, Work and Health, TNO-VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Professor Allard J van der Beek, Occupational Epidemiology, VU University Medical Center, Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute, Amsterdam 1081 BT, The Netherlands; a.vanderbeek{at}vumc.nl

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a worksite vitality intervention on vigorous physical activity (VPA), fruit intake, aerobic capacity, mental health and need for recovery after work among older hospital workers (ie, 45 years and older).

Methods The 6-month intervention was evaluated using a randomised controlled trial design. Workers who were randomised to the intervention group (n=367; control: n=363) received the Vital@Work intervention containing (1) a Vitality Exercise Program (VEP) combined with (2) three visits to Personal Vitality Coach. The VEP consisted of a weekly yoga session, a weekly workout session and weekly unsupervised aerobic exercising. Free fruit was provided at the VEP. Data on the outcome measures were collected (ie, year 2009–2010) at baseline (n=730) and 6 months of follow-up after baseline (n=575) using questionnaires, accelerometers and 2 km walk tests. Effects were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle with complete cases (n=575) and imputed data (n=730) using linear regression analyses. Additional analyses were performed for high yoga and workout compliance (ie, >mean number of sessions).

Results Effects were found for sports activities (β=40.4 min/week, 95% CI 13.0 to 67.7) and fruit intake (β=2.7 pieces/week, 95% CI 0.07 to 4.7) and were stronger for workers with high compliance to yoga (sport: β=49.6 min/week, 95% CI 13.9 to 85.2; fruit: β=3.8 pieces/week, 95% CI 1.1 to 6.4) and workout sessions (sport: β=72.9 min/week, 95% CI 36.1 to 109.8; fruit: β=4.0 pieces/week, 95% CI 1.1 to 6.4). The intervention group lowered their need for recovery, when compared to controls (β=−3.5, 95% CI −6.4 to −0.54), with stronger effects for high workout compliance (β=−5.3, 95% CI −9.3 to −1.3). No effects were found on VPA, aerobic capacity or mental health.

Conclusions Implementation of worksite yoga and workout facilities and minimal fruit interventions should be considered by employers to promote transitions into healthier lifestyles and thereby health.

  • Lifestyle
  • older workers
  • randomised controlled trial
  • workplace yoga
  • workplace aerobic exercising
  • ageing
  • workplace
  • health promotion
  • randomised trials

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Funding The Vital@Work study is financially supported by the ‘Foundation Institute GAK’. The trial is registered at the Dutch Trial Register (NTR) under trial registration number: NTR1240 (http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1240).

  • Competing interests None.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Ethics approval The study was approved by Medical Ethics Committee of VU University Medical Center.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.