Skip Navigation



Health Education Research Advance Access published online on September 13, 2009
Health Education Research, doi:10.1093/her/cyp052
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by De Cocker, K. A.
Right arrow Articles by Cardon, G. M.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by De Cocker, K. A.
Right arrow Articles by Cardon, G. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

The effect of a multi-strategy workplace physical activity intervention promoting pedometer use and step count increase

Katrien A. De Cocker*, Ilse M. De Bourdeaudhuij and Greet M. Cardon

Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Watersportlaan 2, B-9000, Ghent, Belgium

Correspondence to: * Correspondence to: K. A. De Cocker. E-mail: Katrien.DeCocker{at}UGent.be

Pedometer use and step count goals have become popular in physical activity (PA) interventions in different settings. Previous pedometer-based workplace interventions were short term, uncontrolled and executed outside Europe. This European quasi-experimental study evaluated the effects of a 20-week pedometer-based PA workplace intervention. Pedometer-based and self-reported PA from one intervention worksite (68 participants at follow-up) was compared with the data of a comparison workplace (79 participants at follow-up). A downward trend in overall step counts from baseline (end of summer) to follow-up (winter) was found (F = 3.3, P = 0.071). However, the intervention effect revealed a significant smaller decrease in the intervention workplace (–618 steps/day) than in the comparison workplace (–1389 steps/day) (F = 8.8, P = 0.004). This intervention effect was only present in already active participants, reaching 10 000 steps/day at baseline (intervention participants: –1706 steps/day; comparison participants: –4006 steps/day) (F = 5.5, P = 0.023). Overall project awareness was very high (97%) and the intervention strategies were judged ‘good to very good’ by 57–95% of the participants. However, the proportion of intervention participants reporting that they had changed their PA behavior because of the intervention (31%) and reporting that they had used the pedometer during the intervention (48%) was limited. Future workplace projects should give extra attention to inactive employees.

Received on September 26, 2008; accepted on August 18, 2009


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.