Walking towards health in a university community: A feasibility study

Abstract

Objective

Using a randomised control trial design, this study assessed the impact of two walking interventions, on the work day step counts and health of UK academic and administrative, university employees.

Method

A convenience sample of 58 women (age 42 ± 10 years) and 6 men (age 40 ± 11 years) completed baseline and intervention measures for step counts, % body fat, waist circumference and systolic/diastolic blood pressure, during a ten-week period (October to December, 2005). Before intervention, baseline step counts (five working days) were used to randomly allocate participants to a control (maintain normal behaviour, n = 22) and two treatment groups (“walking routes”, n = 21; “walking in tasks”, n = 21). Intervention effects were evaluated by calculating differences between pre-intervention and intervention data. A one-way ANOVA analysed significant differences between groups.

Results

A significant intervention effect (p < 0.002) was found for step counts, with mean differences indicating a decrease in steps for the control group (− 767 steps/day) and increases in the “walking routes” (+ 926 steps/day) and “walking in tasks” (+ 997 steps/day) groups. Small, non-significant changes were found in % body fat, waist circumference and blood pressure.

Conclusions

Findings have implications for work-based physical activity promotion and the development of walking interventions within the completion of work-based tasks.

Introduction

Adults may accrue health benefits by accumulating at least 30 min of moderate intensity physical activity, at least five times a week (Department of Health, 2004). This need not only occur through sports or gym-based exercise, but also through lifestyle-based activities such as walking. For example, research has shown that accumulating 10,000 steps/day provides a range of significant clinical health benefits (Le Masurier et al., 2003). Furthermore, there is a dose–response relationship between physical activity and disease-related conditions, with the greatest public health benefits gained as people move from an inactive to a low active state. Achieving 10,000 steps/day remains an important threshold for optimal health. However, dose–response evidence indicates that steps accumulated above baseline, even if not achieving the recommendation of 10,000 steps/day, contribute to improved health (Lee et al., 2004). For this reason, interventions are beneficial if step scores increase, whether or not individuals achieve recommended daily totals.

Despite its benefits and recognition that walking is one of the most accessible forms of activity (Department of Health, 2004), walking behaviour generally remains sporadic and infrequent. This is particularly true for those employed within sedentary occupations. The review of Tudor-Locke and Bassett (2004) supports the idea that action is needed in this population group, with office-based employees typically accumulating only 4000–6000 steps/day. This low level of physical activity at work is not inevitable, and there is high potential for work-based walking to positively influence employee health (Marshall, 2004). Questions remain though regarding how this is most effectively achieved in offices where time pressures to complete daily tasks curtail walking opportunities.

Using a randomised control trial design, this study evaluated the impact of two different types of walking intervention, on the work day step counts and health status of academic and administrative employees at Leeds Metropolitan University, UK. The first, more traditional intervention employed designated walking routes around campus. The second, more radical, intervention involved walking within daily tasks. This approach was based on the notion that all activities contribute to improved health.