Effectiveness of a Goldilocks Work intervention in childcare workers - A cluster-randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Poor cardiorespiratory fitness and health is common among childcare workers. We designed the `Goldilocks-games` according to the Goldilocks Work principle to provide high-intensity physical activity for childcare workers. We investigated the effectiveness of this Goldilocks Work intervention in increasing occupational high-intensity physical activity and improving work-related health. METHODS: In a two-arm cluster randomized trial, 16 childcare institutions with 142 workers were randomly allocated to either an 8-week Goldilocks Work intervention or a control group. The primary outcome was occupational time in high-intensity physical activity. Secondary outcomes were occupational time in active physical behaviors, heart rate during sleep, pain, physical exhaustion, energy at work, work productivity, and need for recovery. RESULTS: The intervention was successfully delivered and received. Both groups had a low amount of occupational high-intensity physical activity at baseline, and the intervention group reported playing the games 3.1 [standard deviation (SD) 1.5] times/week for a duration of 112.2 (SD 175.0) min/week. However, the intervention did not increase high-intensity physical activity or the secondary outcomes, except for energy at work, measured on a scale from 0-10, increasing 0.65 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08-1.21], and need for recovery, measured on a scale from 1-5, decreasing -0.32 (95% CI, -0.54- -0.09). CONCLUSION: The intervention was successfully delivered and received, but did not increase high-intensity physical activity. The intervention group increased their energy at work and decreased their need for recovery, but not the other health-related outcomes. Further research on how to design and implement health-promoting work environment interventions in childcare is needed.

Does it matter for health if steps are taken during work or leisure? A prospective accelerometer study using register-based long-term sickness absence.

BACKGROUND: Walking is known to be good for health. However, it is unknown whether it matters if steps are taken during work or leisure. Therefore, we aimed to examine the prospective association between accelerometer-measured steps taken during work or leisure and register-based long-term sickness absence (LTSA). METHODS: We included 937 blue- and white-collar workers from the PODESA cohort who wore a thigh-based accelerometer over four days to measure number of steps during work and leisure. Steps were divided into domain based on diary data. First event of LTSA was retrieved from a national register with four years' follow-up. We used Cox proportional hazard models to analyze the association between domain-specific and total daily steps and LTSA, adjusted for age, sex, job type, smoking, and steps in the other domain (e.g., work/leisure). RESULTS: We found more steps at work to be associated with a higher LTSA risk [Hazard Ratio (HR):1.04; 95% CI: 1.00-1.08 per 1000 steps]. No significant association was found between steps during leisure and LTSA (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.91-1.02), nor between total daily steps and LTSA (HR: 1.01; CI 95% 0.99-1.04). CONCLUSIONS: More steps at work were associated with higher risk of LTSA, while steps during leisure was not clearly associated with LTSA risk. These findings partly support 'the physical activity paradox' stating that the association between physical activity and health depends on the domain.