Walk@Work: An automated intervention to increase walking in university employees not achieving 10,000 daily steps

Nicholas D Gilson, Guy Faulkner, Marie Murphy, M Renee Umstattd Meyer, Tracy Washinton, Gemma Ryde, Kelly P Arbour-Nicitopoulos, Kimber A Dillon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective. This study assessed the workday step counts of lower active (b10,000 daily steps) university 22employees using an automated, web-based walking intervention (Walk@Work). 23Methods. Academic and administrative staff (n=390; 45.6±10.8 years; BMI 27.2±5.5 kg/m2; 290women) 24at five campuses (Australia [x2], Canada, Northern Ireland and the United States), were given a pedometer, 25access to the website program (2010–11) and tasked with increasing workday walking by 1000 daily steps 26above baseline, every two weeks, over a six week period. Step count changes at four weeks post intervention 27were evaluated relative to campus and baseline walking. 28Results. Across the sample, step counts significantly increased frombaseline to post-intervention (1477 daily 29steps; p=0.001). Variations in increases were evident between campuses (largest difference of 870 daily steps; 30p=0.04) and for baseline activity status. Those least active at baseline (b5000 daily steps; n=125) increased 31step counts the most (1837 daily steps; p=0.001), whereas those most active (7500–9999 daily steps; n=79) 32increased the least (929 daily steps; p=0.001). 33Conclusions. Walk@Work increased workday walking by 25% in this sample overall. Increases occurred 34through an automated program, at campuses in different countries, and were most evident for those most in 35need of intervention.
LanguageEnglish
JournalPreventive Medicine
Volumeonline
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 14 Feb 2013

Fingerprint

Walking
Northern Ireland
Canada

Cite this

Gilson, N. D., Faulkner, G., Murphy, M., Umstattd Meyer, M. R., Washinton, T., Ryde, G., ... Dillon, K. A. (2013). Walk@Work: An automated intervention to increase walking in university employees not achieving 10,000 daily steps. online. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.01.022
Gilson, Nicholas D ; Faulkner, Guy ; Murphy, Marie ; Umstattd Meyer, M Renee ; Washinton, Tracy ; Ryde, Gemma ; Arbour-Nicitopoulos, Kelly P ; Dillon, Kimber A. / Walk@Work: An automated intervention to increase walking in university employees not achieving 10,000 daily steps. 2013 ; Vol. online.
@article{ad56a980b08a44ebafb3aeabf5176e14,
title = "Walk@Work: An automated intervention to increase walking in university employees not achieving 10,000 daily steps",
abstract = "Objective. This study assessed the workday step counts of lower active (b10,000 daily steps) university 22employees using an automated, web-based walking intervention (Walk@Work). 23Methods. Academic and administrative staff (n=390; 45.6±10.8 years; BMI 27.2±5.5 kg/m2; 290women) 24at five campuses (Australia [x2], Canada, Northern Ireland and the United States), were given a pedometer, 25access to the website program (2010–11) and tasked with increasing workday walking by 1000 daily steps 26above baseline, every two weeks, over a six week period. Step count changes at four weeks post intervention 27were evaluated relative to campus and baseline walking. 28Results. Across the sample, step counts significantly increased frombaseline to post-intervention (1477 daily 29steps; p=0.001). Variations in increases were evident between campuses (largest difference of 870 daily steps; 30p=0.04) and for baseline activity status. Those least active at baseline (b5000 daily steps; n=125) increased 31step counts the most (1837 daily steps; p=0.001), whereas those most active (7500–9999 daily steps; n=79) 32increased the least (929 daily steps; p=0.001). 33Conclusions. Walk@Work increased workday walking by 25{\%} in this sample overall. Increases occurred 34through an automated program, at campuses in different countries, and were most evident for those most in 35need of intervention.",
author = "Gilson, {Nicholas D} and Guy Faulkner and Marie Murphy and {Umstattd Meyer}, {M Renee} and Tracy Washinton and Gemma Ryde and Arbour-Nicitopoulos, {Kelly P} and Dillon, {Kimber A}",
year = "2013",
month = "2",
day = "14",
doi = "10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.01.022",
language = "English",
volume = "online",

}

Gilson, ND, Faulkner, G, Murphy, M, Umstattd Meyer, MR, Washinton, T, Ryde, G, Arbour-Nicitopoulos, KP & Dillon, KA 2013, 'Walk@Work: An automated intervention to increase walking in university employees not achieving 10,000 daily steps', vol. online. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.01.022

Walk@Work: An automated intervention to increase walking in university employees not achieving 10,000 daily steps. / Gilson, Nicholas D; Faulkner, Guy; Murphy, Marie; Umstattd Meyer, M Renee; Washinton, Tracy; Ryde, Gemma; Arbour-Nicitopoulos, Kelly P; Dillon, Kimber A.

Vol. online, 14.02.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Walk@Work: An automated intervention to increase walking in university employees not achieving 10,000 daily steps

AU - Gilson, Nicholas D

AU - Faulkner, Guy

AU - Murphy, Marie

AU - Umstattd Meyer, M Renee

AU - Washinton, Tracy

AU - Ryde, Gemma

AU - Arbour-Nicitopoulos, Kelly P

AU - Dillon, Kimber A

PY - 2013/2/14

Y1 - 2013/2/14

N2 - Objective. This study assessed the workday step counts of lower active (b10,000 daily steps) university 22employees using an automated, web-based walking intervention (Walk@Work). 23Methods. Academic and administrative staff (n=390; 45.6±10.8 years; BMI 27.2±5.5 kg/m2; 290women) 24at five campuses (Australia [x2], Canada, Northern Ireland and the United States), were given a pedometer, 25access to the website program (2010–11) and tasked with increasing workday walking by 1000 daily steps 26above baseline, every two weeks, over a six week period. Step count changes at four weeks post intervention 27were evaluated relative to campus and baseline walking. 28Results. Across the sample, step counts significantly increased frombaseline to post-intervention (1477 daily 29steps; p=0.001). Variations in increases were evident between campuses (largest difference of 870 daily steps; 30p=0.04) and for baseline activity status. Those least active at baseline (b5000 daily steps; n=125) increased 31step counts the most (1837 daily steps; p=0.001), whereas those most active (7500–9999 daily steps; n=79) 32increased the least (929 daily steps; p=0.001). 33Conclusions. Walk@Work increased workday walking by 25% in this sample overall. Increases occurred 34through an automated program, at campuses in different countries, and were most evident for those most in 35need of intervention.

AB - Objective. This study assessed the workday step counts of lower active (b10,000 daily steps) university 22employees using an automated, web-based walking intervention (Walk@Work). 23Methods. Academic and administrative staff (n=390; 45.6±10.8 years; BMI 27.2±5.5 kg/m2; 290women) 24at five campuses (Australia [x2], Canada, Northern Ireland and the United States), were given a pedometer, 25access to the website program (2010–11) and tasked with increasing workday walking by 1000 daily steps 26above baseline, every two weeks, over a six week period. Step count changes at four weeks post intervention 27were evaluated relative to campus and baseline walking. 28Results. Across the sample, step counts significantly increased frombaseline to post-intervention (1477 daily 29steps; p=0.001). Variations in increases were evident between campuses (largest difference of 870 daily steps; 30p=0.04) and for baseline activity status. Those least active at baseline (b5000 daily steps; n=125) increased 31step counts the most (1837 daily steps; p=0.001), whereas those most active (7500–9999 daily steps; n=79) 32increased the least (929 daily steps; p=0.001). 33Conclusions. Walk@Work increased workday walking by 25% in this sample overall. Increases occurred 34through an automated program, at campuses in different countries, and were most evident for those most in 35need of intervention.

U2 - 10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.01.022

DO - 10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.01.022

M3 - Article

VL - online

ER -