HEALTH EDUCATION RESEARCH
Vol.26 no.6 2011
Pages 1050–1059
Advance Access publication 28 June 2011
Physical activity promotion in call centres: employers’
perspectives
Sheila J. Renton1*, Nancy E. Lightfoot2 and Marion A. Maar3
1
Clinical Sciences Division, Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Laurentian University, 935 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury,
ON, Canada P3E 2C6, 2School of Rural and Northern Health, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON Canada P3E 2C6
and 3Human Sciences Division, Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON, Canada P3E 2C6
*Correspondence to: S. J. Renton. E-mail: [email protected]
Received on December 17, 2010; accepted on May 26, 2011
Abstract
This study followed a predominantly qualitative
approach to explore the perspectives of employers
in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, call centres (CCs)
regarding physical activity (PA) promotion in
workplaces, by identifying current practices and
employers’ motivation to promote PA, as well as
perceived facilitators and barriers. In-depth interviews were conducted with 15 managers in 10 of
12 local CCs and questionnaires were used to collect quantitative information about participants
and their workplaces. Thematic analysis revealed
that participants’ responses to recommendations
for PA promotion were generally positive and
some CCs were engaged in some PA initiatives.
Employers’ motivations to promote PA included
direct benefits to the employer, concern for employee well-being and the greater good. Barriers
to PA promotion within CCs included the nature
of CC work, managers’ concerns regarding participation, fairness and cost and special limitations
of the workspace. Results indicate additional
actions and supports are required to facilitate
implementation of PA in CCs according to governmental recommendations. Efforts are required
to increase awareness and use of existing resources. Smaller organizations may require more assistance to promote PA than those with a larger
number of employees and may benefit from
enhanced interaction with existing networks and
public health programs and resources.
Introduction
Physical inactivity is considered a public health issue for Canadians given that the majority of the
population is not sufficiently active to achieve the
health benefits associated with regular physical activity (PA) [1]. As part of a comprehensive plan to
help Ontarians achieve and maintain healthy
weights, the Chief Medical Officer of Health has
identified the workplace as a key setting for the
promotion of PA and recommended specific strategies that promote healthy weights (see Table I) [2].
Little is known about the adoption of such strategies within the highly sedentary work environment
of call centres (CCs) where computer and telephone-based technologies are used to distribute incoming and outgoing calls to staff, who interact
with customers while simultaneously accessing
and inputting information on display screen equipment for the purposes of receiving orders, providing
information and skilled services and conducting research or marketing [3, 4]. Promoting PA and encouraging breaks from prolonged sitting may be
particularly important in CCs where employees
spend as much as 95% of their work time sitting
and report weight gain [5–7]. Emerging evidence of
Ó The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
For permissions, please email: [email protected]
doi:10.1093/her/cyr055
Physical activity in call centres
Table I. Recommendations from the healthy weights, healthy lives report [2]
To create working environments that promote healthy weights, workplaces should:
1. Develop a corporate culture that values and supports healthy eating, PA and employee
wellness
2. Audit the workplace, assessing available food choices and opportunities for PA. Discuss
findings with staff and identify ways to make improvements
3. Plan ‘Health Days’: quarterly events that focus on aspects of healthy weights and healthy
living
4. Implement strategies to help people be more physically active at work, such as:
-Using stepmeters/pedometers,
-Building a task team to identify ways to increase PA opportunities,
-Making stairways accessible,
-Arranging for exercise breaks,
-Allowing employees time to be physically active during the day,
-Adjusting working hours to allow parents to walk their children to school and
-Providing PA facilities, programs and incentives.
associations between sedentary behaviour and
health risks which persist despite adjustment for
moderate-intensity PA and the development of an
inactivity physiology paradigm which describes
metabolic consequences of sitting which may be
unique from those related to a lack of PA have
led to suggestions that adherence to current recommendations for minimum PA may not be able to
compensate for high amounts of sitting [8–10]. The
overall reduction of sedentary behaviour and interruption of sitting with light-intensity activity such
as standing or taking a step may become a public
health priority in addition to participation in moderate-intensity PA [8–10]. Conclusions resulting
from a systematic review of published prospective
studies examining associations between sedentary
behaviour and various health outcomes indicate that
there is strong evidence for relationships between
sedentary behaviour and all-cause and cardiovascular disease-related mortality and moderate evidence
for a positive relationship between sitting time and
risk for Type 2 diabetes [11]. However, the evidence regarding health risks related to occupational
sitting is less definitive [12]. Recognizing that sitting at work is likely the major contributor to overall sitting time for adults working full-time in
physically inactive jobs, van Uffelen et al. [12]
undertook a systematic review of research focusing
on occupational sitting which led them to conclude
that, given the heterogeneity of the included
studies, there is currently only limited evidence to
support a positive relationship between occupational sitting and health risk [12]. In part, this conclusion is the consequence of the fact that in less
than half of the 43 articles included in the review
were analyses adjusted for leisure-time PA and the
authors noted that, overall, the studies which did
include adjustments for PA were more likely to
show positive associations between occupational
sitting and health risks than those studies that did
not [12].
Beyond the sedentary nature of CC work, factors
related to job design and the organization of such
work have been shown to be negatively associated
with employee well-being and job satisfaction [13].
Work-related stress has been commonly reported
by call-handlers, resulting from limited job control,
difficult customers, unrealistic performance quotas,
rotating shifts, poor relations with management and
aspects of the physical environment [14, 15]. Working conditions in CCs, such as inadequate thermal
comfort and inappropriate table height, high call
volume and continuous work without breaks, have
also been associated with aches or pains in the
neck-shoulder and wrist-hand areas [16, 17].
Although researchers in several countries have identified negative associations between CC work and
measures of employee health and well-being [13–
17], little has been published regarding what CC
employers are doing to address this situation. The
plan for a 2-year-long randomized clinical trial
designed to compare the efficiency of different types
1051
S. J. Renton et al.
of interventions on employee health in two Hungarian
CCs has been described [18]. Following initial assessment of subjective health status, lifestyle and health
behaviours, work stressors, coping strategies, organizational commitment and job satisfaction, an individual-focused intervention designed to promote healthy
lifestyle behaviours will be provided in one CC which
will act as the control group. In the experimental CC,
the individual-focused intervention will be supplemented with an organizational-focused intervention
designed to decrease or eliminate potentially harmful
workplace demands associated with health problems,
such as time pressures, low esteem of the employees’
work, unfavourable physical conditions and a lack of
support for workplace social relationships. To date,
the results of this trial have not been published.
A Canadian study of the impact of CC-related
stressors on employee health and well-being found
that some participants engaged in physical exercise
as a coping strategy to deal with work-related stress
and called for the implementation of health promotion policies to encourage CC employees to be
physically active [14]. Despite these recommendations and those of the Ontario government outlining
specific PA-related strategies to be implemented in
workplaces [2], it is not known how CC employers
perceive such recommendations, nor to what extent
such strategies have been adopted.
The purpose of this study is to explore the perspectives of CC employers within the City of Greater
Sudbury in northeastern Ontario, Canada regarding
provincial recommendations for workplaces to promote PA. The objectives are to develop an understanding of current practices in CCs that support PA
and to determine what motivates CC employers to
promote PA and what factors serve as facilitators and
barriers. Results are useful to public health advocates
and workplace health promotion personnel concerned with PA promotion in CCs and may be of
interest to other workplace environments.
Materials and methods
Following a case study approach to explore the opinions and perceptions of CC employers regarding PA
1052
promotion in the workplace, as multiple cases
working within the geographic boundaries of the
City of Greater Sudbury, this study used a concurrent, embedded mixed methods design in which
qualitative procedures were supplemented with
quantitative data about the participants and their
CCs [19, 20]. Ethics approval was received from
the Lakehead University Research Ethics Board.
Participants
A purposive sampling strategy designed to achieve
maximum variation was used to recruit participants
working in managerial roles, such as human resource and operational management positions, in
each of the 12 CCs identified by the City’s Growth
and Development Department [21]. An invitation
was sent to potential participants, with telephone
follow-up, and a presentation was made to the local
Contact Centre Network, with email follow-up to
non-attendees. All participants were provided with
small incentives that consisted of a four-page list of
local and electronic resources available to assist
with the development and implementation of programs for workplace PA promotion, the chance to
win one of five 3-month memberships to a national
fitness facility which could be used by the participant or awarded to an employee as desired, and for
each CC, one pedometer and booklet about the
10 000 steps-a-day program meant to stimulate interest in objective measurement of PA.
Data collection
Qualitative data were collected in semi-structured
face-to-face interviews. Participants were provided
with the list of recommendations shown in Table I
and were asked the following open-ended questions: what is your reaction to these recommendations?; what current practices does your workplace
have to promote PA?; what has motivated, or might
motivate, your organization to promote PA in the
workplace?; what has assisted, or would assist, your
organization with the implementation of strategies
to promote PA in the workplace?; what barriers
presently exist or did your organization have
to overcome in order to implement strategies to
Physical activity in call centres
promote PA in the workplace? Follow-up probing
questions were used to explore meanings or new
ideas.
Quantitative data were collected using two brief
self-administered questionnaires designed to collect
information regarding the CC (i.e. type of work,
call direction, head office location, number of
employees and union status) and the participant
[i.e. demographic information and current level of
PA using the short form of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)] [22]. The
IPAQ is a measure for comparing population levels
of PA among adults which considers all domains of
PA, including at work and in transportation [23].
While it is not recommended for use as an outcome
measure in small-scale intervention studies, it has
been used in this study as an easily administered,
brief tool to classify participants’ current level of
PA [24].
Data analysis
Audiotapes were transcribed verbatim and pseudonyms were created to ensure anonymity. Each transcript was read several times, and key quotations
were identified using a mix of free and in vivo coding, using the Atlas.ti V5.0 qualitative data analysis
software [25]. Codes associated with the question:
‘what has motivated, or might motivate, your organization to promote PA in the workplace’? were
grouped into a code family entitled ‘motivators’.
Similarly, codes associated with the question: ‘what
has assisted, or would assist, your organization with
the implementation of strategies to promote PA in
the workplace’? were grouped into a code family
entitled ‘facilitators’ and codes associated with the
question: ‘what barriers presently exist or did your
organization have to overcome in order to implement strategies to promote PA in the workplace’?
were grouped into a code family entitled ‘barriers’.
Common themes were identified within each of
these three code families, and for each family, a network was created to demonstrate visually the
researchers’ interpretation of how the codes related
to the themes (not shown).
The IPAQ guidelines were followed to assign
categorical scores of ‘high’, ‘moderate’ or ‘low’
PA [24]. The reported practices currently in place
to promote PA were compared with the recommended strategies, resulting in a classification of ‘none’,
‘few’ or ‘some’. The term ‘none’ was used to describe CCs in which there were no current practices
to promote PA, while ‘few’ was used to describe
those CCs currently offering a few, but not many, of
the initiatives identified in the recommendations
and ‘some’ was used to describe CCs in which
several of the recommended strategies were
currently in place.
The rigour of this study was enhanced through
use of an audit trail and a member-checking activity, in which a preliminary report of the identified
themes was sent electronically or presented to participants to elicit feedback in order to ensure
accurate interpretation [19, 26].
Results
Between February and July 2009, 15 managers
working in 10 of the 12 CCs agreed to participate
in the study, representing a response rate of 50% of
the 30 invited individuals, within 83% of the CCs
on the City’s list. Following the 15th interview,
saturation was achieved as no new information
was being revealed [27]. The time required for the
interview and questionnaire completion varied between 15 and 40 min. The interviewer (S.J.R.) was
not previously acquainted with the participants.
Characteristics of participants and CCs are summarized in Tables II and III, respectively.
Managers’ responses to the
recommendations
Overall, the managers responded positively to the
provincial recommendations that workplaces should
‘create working environments that promote healthy
weights’ through the adoption of the specific strategies shown in Table I [2]. Participants used words
such as ‘fabulous’ and ‘fantastic’ to describe the
recommendations as a whole. However, there was
some disagreement regarding how well the recommendations fit the CCs. While one participant commented that the recommendations would be ‘very
1053
S. J. Renton et al.
Table II. Characteristics of participants (n = 15)
Characteristic
Age (years)
Range
Mean (SD)
Gender
Female
Male
Manager type
Human resources
Operationala
Senior level
PA level
High
Moderate
Low
Participants, n (%)
29–48
39.9 (5.3)
Current workplace practices which
promote PA
9 (60.0)
6 (40.0)
Several of the respondents indicated that there were
currently no workplace initiatives to promote PA,
although some mentioned that there had been initiatives in the past, which were no longer available.
Queries were run to explore how the number of
employees within the CCs related to the current practices. As shown in Table IV, all of the CCs classified
as offering ‘some’ of the recommended initiatives
had more than 200 employees. All of the CCs with
fewer than 200 employees were classified as having
‘no’ or ‘few’ current practices to promote PA.
Of the recommended strategies, those most commonly offered were the use of pedometers and the
promotion of exercise, either as part of an exercise
break close to the workstations or through posted
information. Several CCs offered corporate discounts for fitness facilities or weight-loss programs
but there were no on-site facilities. Very few CCs
had a workplace wellness committee, and while in
some locations, stairways were considered accessible, there was no process in place to promote their
use. Other reported PA initiatives not listed in the
recommendations included informal walking
groups and participation in sporting tournaments.
Some CCs posted information on bulletin boards
or internal websites. Bicycle racks were available
4 (26.7)
8 (53.3)
3 (20.0)
7 (46.7)
5 (33.3)
3 (20.0)
a
Job titles related to customer care, service delivery, operations
and supervision.
Table III. Characteristics of the represented CCs
Characteristic
Ownership type
In-house
Outsourced
Location of head office in
Sudbury
Ontario, but not Sudbury
Canada, but not Ontario
Another country
Type of work
Customer sales and service
Market research and survey
Call direction
Outbound
Inbound
Equally outbound and inbound
Number of employees
<50
51–99
100–200
201–350
>351
Type of employment
Full-time
Part-time
Unionization status
Unionized
Not unionized
1054
attainable even for this environment’, another said,
‘some of them are not realistic for our workplace or
for our business’.
CCs, n (%)
4 (40.0)
6 (60.0)
4
3
1
2
(40.0)
(30.0)
(10.0)
(20.0)
8 (80.0)
2 (20.0)
4 (40.0)
5 (50.0)
1 (10.0)
4
1
2
1
2
(40.0)
(10.0)
(20.0)
(10.0)
(20.0)
5 (50.0)
5 (50.0)
3 (30.0)
7 (70.0)
Table IV. Number of current practices promoting PA, by
employee number
Number of Number of current practices promoting PA
employees
n
None
Few
Some
<50
51–99
100–200
201–350
>351
a
4
1
2
1
2
Ha, L, J
R
K
M, A
Alphabetical characters represent unique CCs.
G
N, D
Physical activity in call centres
at, or near, some CCs but the safety of bicycling
was questioned for employees working late hours.
Employer motivators for PA promotion
Three themes were identified in the participants’
comments regarding employers’ motivation to promote PA. Participants spoke of how the ‘Employer
Reaps the Benefits’, through enhanced productivity:
I think, that, you know, studies all over the place
show that your activity level reduces your stress
level and makes you just more productive, more
alert and that kind of thing, so um, it’s, I think it’s
much needed in this type of environment, in any
environment where you’re sitting at a desk and
strapped to a headphone, a headset all day long.
. I think seeing the benefits of increased productivity would probably be my biggest motivator.
Managers acknowledged that although the employer may bear some costs related to promoting
PA, a return-on-investment would be expected, not
only through reduced absenteeism but also through
reduced health-related expenses. Participants
expressed their belief that the promotion of PA
would improve morale, create a positive work atmosphere, encourage teamwork and aid in recruitment.
On a personal level, some participants were motivated by their expectation that PA promotion at work
would help them achieve their own fitness goals.
The second theme related to employer motivation was a ‘Concern for Employee Well-being’.
Managers recognized that the repetitive and stressful nature of CC work can negatively affect employee health and morale and believed that PA
could help to reduce stress and promote balance
between work-life priorities. A sense of ‘The
Greater Good’ was the third theme identified within
comments about employer motivations to promote
PA; however, the idea that employers have some
moral responsibility to promote employee health
was not shared by all. While some managers believed that employers may hold at least some responsibility for the promotion of PA amongst
employees, one participant explained ‘It’s not
something that crosses a lot of employers’ minds
as something to help be responsible for’. The sentiment that the promotion of PA within workplaces
would benefit society overall was expressed by this
participant: ‘The end concept of having an employee that is healthier, that is happier, that is more
reliable and more productive, I think is beneficial to
the entire organization and society as a whole’.
Facilitators for PA promotion
Managers identified many factors, which would
assist with PA promotion in CCs. They spoke of
a need for guidance, fresh ideas and information.
Some referred to the local health unit as a source
of assistance. One participant mentioned the value
of participating in activities organized by other
groups: ‘Things like the Cancer Society, things we
can tag onto in addition to what we do internally are
always a help’. Financial assistance to offset costs,
dedicated resources for health promotion, workplace
wellness teams with employee representation, and
senior management support were expected to help.
It was suggested that: ‘A lot more marketing on that
idea might help. I think if it starts to become an
expectation of an employee, then an employer will
have no other recourse but to take it seriously. It
becomes an expectation’. Other identified facilitators
were local champions and role models and
geographic proximity to appropriate space for exercise. One participant suggested ‘A little friendly
competition’ between CCs.
Barriers to PA promotion
Barriers to the implementation of PA in the workplace were described by three themes. Relating to
‘The Nature of CC Work’, participants explained
how the focus on clients’ needs required that a certain number of employees be on the phones at specific hours and that various measures were used to
monitor performance, thus limiting scheduling flexibility and preventing group exercise breaks.
It’s difficult too because of the nature of the industry, you can’t unfortunately give a lot of time for,
like on the job time, paid time for them to get up and
move around, you know, because . production’s
1055
S. J. Renton et al.
very important, you know, ‘every bum in a seat,
and every call being made’, these are all our metrics
and what makes us tick, so it’s tough.
The work was described as fast paced with heavy
call volume, and while some participants suggested
that employees could stand or pace while on the
phone, this was not possible in all CCs.
Usually you’re tied to a little cord where you
have about 5 feet of walking room, like we do
have some agents who stand up on some calls,
you know, and kind’a just pace back and forth,
probably when they’re tired of sitting or [they]
need to wake up.
There’s a lot of toggling between the computer
and speaking to the customer as well, so even to
stand up and do something is difficult.
Managers also identified barriers, which were thematically summarized as ‘Concerns of Managers’.
Many participants doubted employee interest in PA,
suggesting that some CC employees are attracted by
the sedentary work as explained in this comment:
The folks that typically enjoy this type of work
are the ones that aren’t going, those aren’t the
ones that want to climb up and down ladders to
get keyboards and monitors off of a top shelf at
Future Shop, or Staples or whatever. . The
employees in this industry that seem to get frustrated the most are the ones who like to move
around a lot more, like more PA. This gets frustrating for them and they get bored. So that suggests that on the flip side, the folks that are staying
are the ones ., who like to sit down more.
Furthermore, managers estimated that 80–90%
of their workforce smoke and expected that those
employees would choose smoking over exercising
during breaks. Some participants expressed doubt
that their employees would be interested in PA initiatives given struggles they face due to low socioeconomic status, particularly if PA activities would
affect their income or have associated out-of-pocket
1056
expenses. Managers recognized that some of their
employees, particularly single parents, were struggling to make ends meet in low paying jobs. Other
identified barriers were the expected costs that the
employer might incur related to equipment, lost
time and liability insurance and the fact that in some
CCs, PA promotion was not considered a priority.
Some managers were concerned that employees
may consider PA promotion to be discriminatory
or a form of harassment of inactive employees:
When . I start talking about becoming more
physically active and more physically fit and
healthy and improving your energy and so on
and so forth, I run the risk of people going ‘Yeah,
you think everybody’s supposed to be fit and
healthy just because you’re like that, you think
we should and that’s discrimination and’ . so
it’s a very scary topic. It really is.
Some described a sense that ‘it’s all or nothing’,
meaning that in order to promote PA in the workplace, all employees must be involved.
‘Characteristics of the CC’ was the third theme
identified within comments regarding barriers to
PA promotion. Participants from smaller organizations felt they had too few employees to make PA
promotion feasible. One participant described how
employees hired on contract to work on ‘campaigns’ created an ‘ebb and flow’ of employees,
preventing consistency of membership on a workplace wellness committee. Some buildings lacked
stairs or space for on-site facilities.
Discussion
Overall, the CC managers participating in this study
expressed favourable attitudes in principle towards
provincial recommendations for PA promotion in
the workplace [2]. However, recommendations related to allowing time for PA during the day and
scheduling flexibility were considered least practical given the nature of CC work. The finding that all
of the larger CCs were engaged in some of the
recommended initiatives, while all smaller CCs
Physical activity in call centres
offered few, or none, suggests that size does matter.
This difference is corroborated by other published
reports and may be explained by the availability of
dedicated financial and human resources for health
promotion in larger organizations [28, 29].
Findings of this study reveal that CC employers generally are motivated to promote PA by their concerns for
their organization, their employees and for society as
a whole. As found in other studies, managers were
motivated by expected benefits, such as increased productivity, reduced absenteeism and improved employee morale [28, 30, 31], and the idea that
employers have a moral responsibility to promote employee health was not shared by all [30]. Identified
facilitators included factors external to the organization such as guidance, materials and opportunities to
participate in activities organized by other groups.
Participants spoke of internal facilitators, which have
been well documented in the literature [32, 33], such
as the formation of workplace wellness committees
that engage employees in participatory planning,
securing support from senior leadership and the allocation of financial and human resources. Barriers to
PA promotion in CCs included the demanding and
sedentary nature of this work, managers’ doubt regarding employee interest and concern that such efforts
may be interpreted as discriminatory. As in other studies [28], expected costs related to equipment, lost time
and liability insurance was another identified barrier.
Limitations of this study include two types of
potential bias. The purposive sampling strategy
may have created a selection bias through internal
referral to managers with positive attitudes regarding PA promotion. Our affiliations with health academia and in-person interviews conducted by
a physically active graduate student of public health
(S.J.R.) may have contributed to a social desirability bias. Despite the limited geographic range of this
study, transferability of the results is supported by
the strong representation rate (10 of the 12 identified CCs) and the quantitative description of the
represented CCs, which allows good comparison
with other published data [34].
As this study focused solely on the perspectives of
CC managers, future studies should also consider the
employee perspective, to explore further how the
culture of CCs may impact the implementation
or success of PA promotion initiatives. In CCs
currently engaged in PA promotion, the investigation of employees’ awareness of, satisfaction with
and participation in such programs is important for
the identification of barriers limiting employees’ involvement, some of which may be unknown to managers. In keeping with emerging evidence
surrounding inactivity physiology and the deleterious effects of sedentary behaviour [8–12], future
studies should explore the related knowledge and
perceptions of CC employers and employees and
engage with all parties to develop and evaluate workplace practices, which reduce prolonged sitting.
Implications for practice and policy
The findings of this study have several implications
for practice and policy. As many of the resources that
participants indicated would facilitate PA promotion
in CCs already exist, increased efforts are required to
alert managers to their availability. To this end, local
and provincial public health advocates and workplace wellness experts should renew, or increase,
efforts to advertise services to CC employers, recognizing that smaller organizations may require more
assistance. Given that the nature of CC work poses
challenges for the adoption of the government’s recommendations, CC managers and health promotion
advocates should work together to implement those
strategies most feasible while exploring creative
ways to adapt less practical elements and restructure
current workplace practices. As a first step, organizations should engage with employees of all levels to
form workplace wellness committees and investigate
employee interest in PA. Given the reportedly high
rate of smoking and evidence that interventions that
address multiple behaviours concomitantly have the
potential to offer greater health benefits than singlefocused initiatives [35], the ‘co-promotion’ of smoking cessation and PA should be considered.
The existence of CC networks offers opportunities
for information sharing and resource sharing which
may enhance PA promotion within participating
organizations. Smaller CCs with limited resources
may be able to develop beneficial partnerships
with other organizations within the industry. The
1057
S. J. Renton et al.
suggestion of an industry-wide friendly PA competition can be explored.
On a broader level, to heighten awareness of the
recommendations set out in the ‘Healthy Weights,
Healthy Lives’ Report [2], the Ontario Ministries of
Health Promotion and Labour should work together
to inform employers and to develop public expectations that workplaces actively engage in PA promotion. Financial incentives for businesses
experiencing significant costs should be considered.
Conclusions
This study adds to the existing body of knowledge
surrounding employers’ perspectives on workplace
initiatives to promote PA, looking specifically
within CCs where various factors related to the design of work and the work environment, including
prolonged sitting, may pose increased health risks
for employees. Findings of this research lead to
recommendations for action at local and provincial
levels, which are expected to assist in the implementation of PA-promoting activities.
Funding
This work was supported by GoodLife Fitness
through the provision of five, 3-month memberships received as participant incentives.
Acknowledgements
Appreciation is extended to the participants who
generously shared their time and insights and to
GoodLife Fitness for supporting this study.
Conflict of interest statement
None declared.
References
1. Cameron C, Wolfe R, Craig CL. Physical Activity and
Sport: Encouraging Children to be Active. Ottawa, Canada:
Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Institute, 2007.
1058
2. Chief Medical Officer of Health (Ontario). 2004 Chief Medical Officer of Health Report: Healthy Weights, Healthy
Lives. Report No: 7610–2242949. Toronto, Canada:
Queen’s Printer of Ontario, 2004.
3. Holman D. Call centres. In: Holman D, Wall TD, Clegg CW
et al. (eds). The New Workplace. West Sussex, UK: John
Wiley & Sons, 2003, 115–34.
4. Wegge J, Van Dick R, Fisher GK et al. Work motivation,
organisational identification, and well-being in call centre
work. Work Stress 2006; 20: 60–83.
5. Kruger J, Yore MM, Ainsworth BE et al. Is participation in
occupational physical activity associated with lifestyle physical activity levels? J Occup Environ Med 2006; 48: 1143–8.
6. Holman D. Phoning in sick? An overview of employee stress
in call centres. Leadersh Organ Dev J 2003; 24: 123–30.
7. Boyce RW, Boone EL, Cioci BW et al. Physical activity,
weight gain and occupational health among call centre
employees. Occup Med (Lond) 2008; 58: 238–44.
8. Hamilton MT, Healy GN, Dunston DW et al. Too little
exercise and too much sitting: inactivity physiology and
the need for new recommendations on sedentary behavior.
Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep 2008; 2: 292–8.
9. Healy G, Wijndaele K, Dunstan D et al. Objectively measured sedentary time, physical activity, and metabolic risk:
the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab). Diabetes Care 2008; 31: 369–70.
10. Katzmarzyk PT, Church TS, Craig CL et al. Sitting time and
mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease and cancer.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41: 998–1005.
11. Proper KI, Singh AS, van Mechelen W et al. Sedentary behaviors and health outcomes among adults: a systematic review of
prospective studies. Am J Prev Med 2011; 40: 174–82.
12. van Uffelen JGZ, Wong J, Chau JY et al. Occupational
sitting and health risks: a systematic review. Am J Prev
Med 2010; 39: 379–88.
13. Holman D. Employee well-being in call centres. Hum
Resour Manage 2002; 12: 35–50.
14. Putnam C, Fenety A, Loppie C. Who’s on the Line? Women
in Call Centres Talk about their Work and its Impact on
their Health and Well-Being. Halifax, Canada: Maritime
Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health, 2000. Available
at: http://www.acewh.dal.ca/eng/reports/CallCtrPutnam.pdf.
Accessed: 17 August 2008.
15. Taylor P, Baldry C, Bain P et al. ‘A unique working environment’: health, sickness and absence management in UK
call centres. Work Employ Soc 2003; 17: 435–58.
16. Norman K, Floderus B, Hagman M et al. Musculoskeletal
symptoms in relation to work exposures at call centre companies in Sweden. Work. 2008; 30: 201–14.
17. Rocha LE, Glina DMR, MdF Marinho et al. Risk factors for
musculoskeletal symptoms among call center operators of
a bank in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Ind Health 2005; 43: 637–46.
18. Juhasz A. Worksite health promotion—a Hungarian experiment introduction. Periodica Polytechnica Ser Soc Man Sci
2005; 13: 31–44.
19. Creswell JW. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design:
Choosing among Five Approaches, 2nd edn. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007.
20. Creswell JW. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative
and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, 2009.
Physical activity in call centres
21. Bernard HR. Research Methods in Anthropology, 4th edn.
Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2006.
22. International Physical Activity Questionnaire. 2002. Available
at: http://www.ipaq.ki.se/ipaq.htm. Accessed: 5 July 2008.
23. Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjostrom M et al. International
physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and
validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35: 1381–95.
24. International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Guidelines
for Data Processing and Analysis of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. 2005. Available at: http://
www.ipaq.ki.se/scoring.pdf. Accessed: 10 October 2008.
25. Muhr T. User’s Manual for ATLAS.ti 5.0, 2nd edn. Berlin,
Germany: ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development, 2004.
26. Wolf ZR. Exploring the audit trail for qualitative investigations. Nurse Educ 2003; 28: 175–8.
27. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are
enough?: an experiment with data saturation and variability.
Field Methods 2006; 18: 59–82.
28. Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute. Working to
Become Active: Increasing Physical activity in the Canadian
Workplace, Bulletin Series. 2008. Available at: http://
www.cflri.ca/eng/statistics/index.php. Accessed: 14 November
2009.
29. Linnan L, Bowling M, Childress J et al. Results of the 2004
national worksite health promotion survey. Am J Public
Health 2008; 98: 1503–9.
30. Downey AM, Sharp DJ. Why do managers allocate resources to workplace health promotion programmes in countries
with national health coverage? Health Promot Int 2007; 22:
102–11.
31. Makrides L, Heath S, Farquharson J et al. Perceptions of
workplace health: building community partnerships. Clin
Govern 2007; 12: 178–87.
32. Goetzel RZ, Shechter D, Ozminkowski RJ et al. Promising
practices in employer health and productivity management
efforts: findings from a benchmarking study. J Occup Environ Med 2007; 49: 111–30.
33. The Health Communication Unit, Centre for Health Promotion,
University of Toronto. Conditions for Successful Workplace
Health Promotion Initiatives. Toronto, Canada, 2003. Report
No: 3. Available at: http://www.thcu.ca/Workplace/documents/
ConditionsForSuccessWrittenApril02FormatAug03.doc.
Accessed: 2 November 2007.
34. Van Jaarsveld D, Frost AC, Walker D. The Canadian Contact Centre Industry: Strategy, Work Organization & Human Resource Management. 2007. Available at: http://
www.callcentres.org/media_lib/Documents/Final_Canadian_Contact_Centre_Report_8_19_07.pdf. Accessed: 21
July 2008.
35. Prochaska JJ, Hall SM, Humfleet G et al. Physical activity as
a strategy for maintaining tobacco abstinence: a randomized
trial. Prev Med 2008; 47: 215–20.
1059