Tobacco sales through vending machines: Insights from owners and managers of Australian alcohol-licenced premises with different licencing schemes.

OBJECTIVE: Tobacco sales in alcohol-licenced premises present a very problematic trigger for tobacco sales-a trigger that is particularly problematic for attempting quitters and people who smoke occasionally. This study reports on the attitudes, beliefs, and experiences of owners or managers of alcohol-licenced venues that sell tobacco exclusively through vending machines. METHODS: The study involved a telephone survey of alcohol-licenced venue owners or managers in New South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australia. Associations between outlet characteristics and current selling of tobacco exclusively via vending machines were examined, and responses to the open-ended question asking why the venue was likely or unlikely to stop selling cigarettes were manually coded. RESULTS: For most alcohol-licenced venues that sold tobacco exclusively through a vending machine, the profit from these sales was not considered important for the business. However, only a small minority (4%) of these venues reported that they were likely to stop selling tobacco. The most commonly cited concerns about stopping were customer dissatisfaction and potential loss of customers. CONCLUSION: The study provides the first evidence on the attitudes of owners/managers to the importance of tobacco sales, revealing that the vast majority of those owners/managers do not believe that tobacco sales are important for their venue. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: The presence of tobacco vending machines implicitly promotes tobacco products and therefore contravenes Australia's obligations under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The results provide powerful evidence that restrictions on tobacco sales can be implemented without major financial damage to those vendors.

Impact and process evaluation of a co-designed 'Move More, Sit Less' intervention in a public sector workplace.

BACKGROUND: High levels of sitting are associated with increased risk of adverse health outcomes, including chronic disease. Extensive sitting at work is common, hence organisations should provide options to employees to reduce prolonged sitting. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and acceptability of a co-designed intervention to increase standing and reduce sitting in a public-sector office. METHODS: Forty-six adults participated in the quasi-experimental study (30 intervention; 16 control). The intervention involved providing sit-stand desks, prompts, workshops, and information emails to assist behavior change. Participants wore a thigh-mounted Actigraph GT3X+ for five working days and responded to an online questionnaire at baseline (BL), 6 (T1) and 13 weeks (T2) post intervention. RESULTS: Inclinometer-measured proportion of time standing increased in the intervention group from 14% (baseline) to 28% (T1) and 27% (T2) (67 minutes more standing over an 8-hour workday). Intervention participants reduced sitting time from 79% (BL) to 63% (T1 and T2), (80 minutes less sitting over an 8-hour workday). The control group showed no changes. The program was highly recommended (94%), and perceived to support behavior change (81%). CONCLUSIONS: This Move More, Sit Less intervention appears to be efficacious and acceptable. Future interventions should be co-designed to ensure culturally appropriate components and higher acceptability.

Sitting ducks face chronic disease: an analysis of newspaper coverage of sedentary behaviour as a health issue in Australia 2000-2012.

Issue addressed This study examines how sedentary behaviour (too much sitting) was covered as a health issue by Australian newspapers and how physical activity was framed within this newspaper coverage. Methods Articles featuring sedentary behaviour published in Australian newspapers between 2000 and 2012 were analysed for content and framing. Main outcome measures were volume, number and content of newspaper articles; framing and types of sedentary behaviour; responsibility for the problem of and solutions to high levels of sedentary behaviour; and physical activity mentions and how it was framed within sedentary behaviour coverage. Results Out of 48 articles, prolonged sitting was framed as bad for health (52%) and specifically as health compromising for office workers (25%). Adults who sat a lot were framed as 'easy targets' for ill health (21% of headlines led with 'sitting ducks' or 'sitting targets'). Prolonged sitting was framed as an issue of individual responsibility (>90%) with less mention of environmental and sociocultural contributors. Thirty-six of 48 articles mentioned physical activity; 39% stated that being physically active does not matter if a person sits for prolonged periods of time or that the benefits of physical activity are undone by too much sitting. Conclusions News coverage should reflect the full socio-ecological model of sedentary behaviour and continually reinforce the independent and well-established benefits of health-enhancing physical activity alongside the need to limit prolonged sitting. So what? It is important that the entire 'move more, sit less, every day!' message is communicated by news media.

Perspectives on a 'Sit Less, Move More' Intervention in Australian Emergency Call Centres.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged sitting is associated with increased risk of chronic diseases. Workplace programs that aim to reduce sitting time (sit less) and increase physical activity (move more) have targeted desk-based workers in corporate and university settings with promising results. However, little is known about 'move more, sit less' programs for workers in other types of jobs and industries, such as shift workers. This formative research examines the perceptions of a 'sit less, move more' program in an Australian Emergency Call Centre that operates 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. METHODS: Participants were employees (N = 39, 72% female, 50% aged 36-55 years) recruited from Emergency Services control centres located in New South Wales, Australia. The 'sit less, move more' intervention, consisting of emails, posters and timer lights, was co-designed with the management team and tailored to the control centre environment and work practices, which already included electronic height-adjustable sit-stand workstations for all call centre staff. Participants reported their perceptions and experiences of the intervention in a self-report online questionnaire, and directly to the research team during regular site visits. Questionnaire topics included barriers and facilitators to standing while working, mental wellbeing, effects on work performance, and workplace satisfaction. Field notes and open-ended response data were analysed in an iterative process during and after data collection to identify the main themes. RESULTS: Whilst participants already had sit-stand workstations, use of the desks in the standing position varied and sometimes were contrary to expectations (e.g, less tired standing than sitting; standing when experiencing high call stress). Participants emphasised the "challenging" and "unrelenting" nature of their work. They reported sleep issues ("always tired"), work stress ("non-stop demands"), and feeling mentally and physically drained due to shift work and length of shifts. Overall, participants liked the initiative but acknowledged that their predominantly sitting habits were entrenched and work demands took precedence. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the low acceptability of a 'sit less, move more' program in shift workers in high stress environments like emergency call centres. Work demands take priority and other health concerns, like poor sleep and high stress, may be more salient than the need to sit less and move more during work shifts.

Integrating relationship- and research-based approaches in Australian health promotion practice.

We examine the perspectives of health promotion practitioners on their approaches to determining health promotion practice, in particular on the role of research and relationships in this process. Using Grounded Theory methods, we analysed 58 semi-structured interviews with 54 health promotion practitioners in New South Wales, Australia. Practitioners differentiated between relationship-based and research-based approaches as two sources of knowledge to guide health promotion practice. We identify several tensions in seeking to combine these approaches in practice and describe the strategies that participants adopted to manage these tensions. The strategies included working in an evidence-informed rather than evidence-based way, creating new evidence about relationship-based processes and outcomes, adopting 'relationship-based' research and evaluation methods, making research and evaluation useful for communities, building research and evaluation skills and improving collaboration between research and evaluation and programme implementation staff. We conclude by highlighting three systemic factors which could further support the integration of research-based and relationship-based health promotion practices: (i) expanding conceptions of health promotion evidence, (ii) developing 'relationship-based' research methods that enable practitioners to measure complex social processes and outcomes and to facilitate community participation and benefit, and (iii) developing organizational capacity.

The effectiveness of sit-stand workstations for changing office workers' sitting time: results from the Stand@Work randomized controlled trial pilot.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged sitting time is detrimental for health. Individuals with desk-based occupations tend to sit a great deal and sit-stand workstations have been identified as a potential strategy to reduce sitting time. Hence, the objective of the current study was to examine the effects of using sit-stand workstations on office workers' sitting time at work and over the whole day. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial pilot with crossover design and waiting list control in Sydney, Australia from September 2011 to July 2012 (n = 42; 86% female; mean age 38 ± 11 years). Participants used a sit-stand workstation for four weeks in the intervention condition. In the time-matched control condition, participants received nothing and crossed over to the intervention condition after four weeks. The primary outcomes, sitting, standing and walking time at work, were assessed before and after using the workstations with ActivPALs and self-report questionnaires. Secondary outcomes, domain-specific sitting over the whole day, were assessed by self-report. Linear mixed models estimated changes in outcomes adjusting for measurement time, study grouping and covariates. RESULTS: Intervention participants significantly reduced objectively assessed time spent sitting at work by 73 min/workday (95% CI: -106,-39) and increased standing time at work by 65 min/workday (95% CI: 47, 83); these changes were significant relative to controls (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively). Total sitting time significantly declined in intervention participants (-80 min/workday; 95% CI: -155, -4). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that introducing sit-stand workstations in the office can reduce desk-based workers' sitting time at work in the short term. Larger scale studies on more representative samples are needed to determine the public health impact of sit-stand workstations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12612000072819.

Desk-based workers' perspectives on using sit-stand workstations: a qualitative analysis of the Stand@Work study.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged sitting time has been identified as a health risk factor. Sit-stand workstations allow desk workers to alternate between sitting and standing throughout the working day, but not much is known about their acceptability and feasibility. Hence, the aim of this study was to qualitatively evaluate the acceptability, feasibility and perceptions of using sit-stand workstations in a group of desk-based office workers. METHODS: This article describes the qualitative evaluation of the randomized controlled cross-over Stand@Work pilot trial. Participants were adult employees recruited from a non-government health agency in Sydney, Australia. The intervention involved using an Ergotron Workfit S sit-stand workstation for four weeks. After the four week intervention, participants shared their perceptions and experiences of using the sit-stand workstation in focus group interviews with 4-5 participants. Topics covered in the focus groups included patterns of workstation use, barriers and facilitators to standing while working, effects on work performance, physical impacts, and feasibility in the office. Focus group field notes and transcripts were analysed in an iterative process during and after the data collection period to identify the main concepts and themes. RESULTS: During nine 45-min focus groups, a total of 42 participants were interviewed. Participants were largely intrinsically motivated to try the sit-stand workstation, mostly because of curiosity to try something new, interest in potential health benefits, and the relevance to the participant's own and organisation's work. Most participants used the sit-stand workstation and three common usage patterns were identified: task-based routine, time-based routine, and no particular routine. Common barriers to sit-stand workstation use were working in an open plan office, and issues with sit-stand workstation design. Common facilitators of sit-stand workstation use were a supportive work environment conducive to standing, perceived physical health benefits, and perceived work benefits. When prompted, most participants indicated they were interested in using a sit-stand workstation in the future. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a sit-stand workstation in this group of desk-based office workers was generally perceived as acceptable and feasible. Future studies are needed to explore this in different desk-based work populations and settings.