Comparison of Interventions to Promote Health in Workers: A Cluster Randomized Controled Trial
Overview
- Phase
- Not Applicable
- Intervention
- Not specified
- Conditions
- Health Behavior
- Sponsor
- Universidade Metodista de Piracicaba
- Enrollment
- 190
- Locations
- 1
- Primary Endpoint
- Quality of Life
- Status
- Completed
- Last Updated
- 8 years ago
Overview
Brief Summary
The goal of this research was to investigate different intervention strategies in the workplace and their impact on quality of life of workers from companies in the city of Londrina, Parana, Brazil.
The interventions were composed by exercise in the workplace and educational interventions.
Detailed Description
The workplace has special features about human behaviors. Studies (Shepard 1996, Pratt 2008) has shown that workers participate of this kind of health promotion programs for various reasons: One reason is the convenience of doing something without having to look for it; another reason is group support, many workers who share difficulties due to their working demands can find support in each other, so that they could change health behavior. Furthermore there are patterns of formal and informal communication that can contribute to help more people to become healthier making their environment better. Finally, the norms of a corporate behavior can unite the group of workers seeking same objectives. Additionally the literature has shown that adults increased workload, job insecurity and pressure to perform tasks (Sparks 1997). These facts has been shown that workplace is different from community based interventions and leisure interventions. The outcomes proposed to study are different from other studies since the interventions focus changes in behaviors. Sedentary behavior has shown to have 23% of deaths from major chronic disease (WHO 2002). As the populations rises around the world and with the prolonged life expectancies, the number of people with chronic diseases will raise (WHO 2006). By having positive changes in health behavior the costs of public health can be reduced. Studying different types of interventions and testing its efficacy in different places can help the policy makers to create healthier environments. There are strategies being developed in the workplace, but its efficacy is being challenged. There are some researches that show no evidence to prove the continuity of these interventions and there are evidences proving the opposite, positive changes in clinical outcomes as diabetes, blood pressure and elevated blood cholesterol. In addition some measures as BMI, anthropometric, fitness level have shown good association as prediction of development of chronic disease with low cost (Dishman 2004).
Investigators
Antonio Jose Grande
Principal Investigator
Universidade Metodista de Piracicaba
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
- Not provided
Exclusion Criteria
- Not provided
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Quality of Life
Time Frame: The participants were followed for 3 months
The instrument contains 80 questions, of which 67 were structured in 5 points Lickert Scale. QVS-80 has four domains: Health Domain (Health) Physical activity (PA), occupational environment domain (AO) and perception of QoL (QOL). The health domain is composed of 30 questions, and the thirteen initial questions refer to history of the existence of chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, dyslipidemias, bronchitis, allergic rhinitis and cancer; the remaining questions relate to lifestyle and living habits, such as quality of sleep, smoking and consumption of alcohol. The domain of physical activity consists of 15 questions on physical activity. The Domain workplace consists of 11 questions about the physical activity at work and occupational environment. The Domain perception of QoL consists of 24 questions about personal characteristics, and autonomy. The syntax of QVS-80 put the results in a scale of 0 -100 points (the higher the better).
Secondary Outcomes
- Changes in Disease Prevalence(The participants were followed for 3 months)
- Pain Perception(The participants were followed for 3 months)
- Occupational Environment(The participants were followed for 3 months)
- Physical Activity Level(The participants were followed for 3 months)