Effects of Walking Program based on Social Cognitive Theory for Office Workers

Hye-Young Choi; Sook-Ja Yang

doi:10.7469/KJAN.2013.25.6.712

Journal List > Korean J Adult Nurs > v.25(6) > 1076233

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Choi and Yang: Effects of Walking Program based on Social Cognitive Theory for Office Workers

Original Research

Korean J Adult Nurs 2013;25(6):712-724.

Published online: 18 December 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7469/KJAN.2013.25.6.712

Effects of Walking Program based on Social Cognitive Theory for Office Workers

Hye-Young Choi¹, Sook-Ja Yang^2,

^¹Department of Nursing, Tongmyoung University, Busan

^²Division of Nursing Science, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Yang, Sook-Ja Division of Nursing Science, Ewha Womans University, 11-1 Daehyun-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-750, Korea. Tel: +82-2-3277-4652, Fax: +82-2-3277-2850, E-mail: yangsj@ewha.ac.kr

Received 12 August 201328 October 2013 Accepted 10 12s 2013

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a walking program for office workers in terms of social cognitive theory, walking activities and physiological indexes.

Methods

A nonequivalent control group pretest-posttest design was used. The sample consisted of 50 office workers who were identified as having low levels of physical activity according to the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ Research Committee, 2005). The participants were recruited from two companies in Seoul. Of the 50 participants, 26 were assigned to the nonequivalent experimental group and 24 to the control group. The walking program consisted of six didactic sessions via e-mail, two individual telecoaching sessions and three support group meetings over ten weeks. Data were analyzed using SPSS 17.0 program.

Results

The non-equivalent experimental group reported significantly higher posttest scores in walking activities and adhering to the walking protocol than the control group. There were no differences in reported self-efficacy, outcome expectations, body mass index and blood pressure between the two groups.

Conclusion

These findings indicate that a walking program based on social cognitive theory is effective in increasing physical activities for office workers.

Keywords: Walking, Physical activity, Worker, Social cognitive theory

REFERENCES

Abraham C.., Graham-Rowe E.2009. Are worksite interventions effective in increasing physical activity? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review. 3:108–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17437190903151096.

Ai X.., Amoah A.., Candeias V.., Cooper J.., Willi G. C.., Daniel R., et al. 2008. Preventing noncommunicable diseases in the workplace through diet and physical activity. Retrieved May 18, 2012, from World Health Organization, WHO/World Economic Forum Report of a Joint Event Web site:. http://libdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9789241596329_eng.pdf.

Amaya M.., Petosa R. L.2012. An evaluation of a worksite exercise intervention using social cognitive theory: A pilot study. Health Education Journal. 7:133–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0017896911409731.

American College of Sports Medicine. 2006. ACMS's guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. 7th ed.Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Anderson E. S.., Winett R. A.., Wojcik J. R.., Williams D. M.2010. Social-cognitive mediators of change in a group randomized nutrition and physical activity intervention: Social support, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and self-regulation in the guide-to-health trial. Journal of Health Psychology. 15:21–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359105309342297.

Bandura A.1997. Self-efficacy: The excercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman. Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (2002). PAR-Q and You. Retrieved November 18, 2010, from the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology Web site:. http://www.csep.ca/cmfiles/publications/parq/par-q.pdf.

Chobanian A. V.., Bakris G. L.., Black H. R.., Cushman W. C.., Green L. A.., Izzo J. L., et al. 2003. The seventh report of the joint national committee on prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure. Hypertension. 42:1206–1252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/01.HYP.0000107251.49515.c2.

Choi J. I.., Kim H. S.2008. Research for health-life habits of the frequency of exercise in workers. Journal of Sport and Leisure Studies. 34:595–605.

Dinger M. K.., Heesch K. C.., Cipriani G.., Qualls M.2007. Comparison of two email-delivered, pedometer-based interventions to promote walking among insufficiently active women. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sports. 10:297–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2006.07.011.

Faul F.., Erdfelder E.., Lang A. G.., Buchner A.2007. G∗ Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavior, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods. 39:175–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.

Gilson N.., McKenna J.., Cook C.., Brown W.2007. Walking towards health in a university community: A feasibility study. Preventive Medicine. 44:167–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.09.012.

Go Y. A.., Baek H. C.., Hwang I. Y.2007. Effects of community-based group walking exercise program. Journal of Korean Academy of Public Health Nursing. 21:5–14.

Hallam J. S.., Petosa R.2004. The long-term impact of a four-session work-site intervention on selected social cognitive theory variables linked to adult exercise adherence. Health Education & Behavior. 31:88–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1090198103259164.

Haskell W. L.., Lee I. M.., Pate R. R.., Powell K. E.., Blair S. N.., Franklin B. A., et al. 2007. Physical activity and public health: Updated recommendation for adults from the American college of sports medicine and the American heart association. Circulation. 116:1081–1093. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.185649.

Hyoung H. K.., Moon I. O.., Jeong Y. S.2008. The effect of an exercise program on middle-aged and aged women in rural areas. Journal of Korean Academy of Community Health Nursing. 19:545–553.

International Physical Activity Questionnaire Research Committee. 2005. Guidelines for data processing and analysis of the international physical activity questionnaire (IPAQ)-short and long forms. Retrieved November 18, 2010, from the International Physical Activity Questionnaire Web site:. http://www.ipaq.ki.se/scoring.pdf.

Jeffery R. W.., Sherwood N. E.., Brelje K.., Pronk N. P.., Boyle R.., Boucher J. L., et al. 2003. Mail and phone interventions for weight loss in a managed-care setting: Weigh-To-Be one-year outcomes. International Journal of Obesity. 27:1584–1592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0802473.

Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010. 2008 Korea national health and nutrition evaluation statistics, Decks-year Two. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site:. http://knhanes.cdc.go.kr/knhanes/index.do.

Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011. 2009 Korea national health and nutrition evaluation statistics, Decks-year three. Retrieved April 20, 2012, from the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site:. http://knhanes.cdc.go.kr/knhanes/index.do.

Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency. 2011. 2010 Occupational injuries and illnesses statistics: Occupational illness. Retrieved April 20, 2012, from the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency Web site:. http://www.kosha.or.kr/board.do?menuId=555.

Lee I. M.., Buchner D. M.2008. The importance of walking to public health. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 40:S512–S518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31817c65d0.

Lee L. L.., Watson M. C.., Mulvaney C. A.., Tsai C. C.., Lo S. F.2010. The effect of walking intervention on blood pressure control: A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 47:1545–1561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.08.008.

Resnick B.., Zimmerman S. I.., Orwig D.., Furstenberg A. L.., Magaziner J.2000. Outcome expectations for exercise scale: Utility and psychometrics. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 55B:S352–S356.

Rhodes R.., Pfaeffli L.2010. Mediators of physical activity behaviour change among adult non-clinical populations: A review update. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 7(37):1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-7-37.

Rosenthal T.2004. Seasonal variations in blood pressure. The American Journal of Geriatric Cardiology. 13:267–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1076-7460.2004.00060.x.

Seo D. I.., Kim S. K.., Chang H. K.2009. The effects of 12 weeks of walking exercise on body composition and physical fitness in middle aged women. Journal of Korean Academy of Public Health Nursing. 23(1):61–68.

Shin Y. H.., Jang H. J.., Pender N. J.2001. Psychometric evaluation of the exercise self-efficacy scale among Korean adults with chronic diseases. Research in Nursing & Health. 24:68–76.

Speck B. J.., Looney S. W.2001. Effects of a minimal intervention to increase physical activity in women. Nursing Research. 50:374–378.

Yap T. L.., Davis L. S.., Gates D. M.., Hemmings A. B.., Pan W.2009. The effect of tailored E-mails in the workplace. part II. Increasing overall physical activity. AAOHN Journal. 57:313–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/08910162-20090716-01.

Table 1.

Construction of Walking Program based on Social Cognitive Theory for Office Workers

Time	Sessions	Delivery	Intervening variable	Evaluation methods
1st week	·Moving forward with walking activity	·Support group meetings	·Outcome expectations	. Process evaluation
1st week	- The effect of walking	·Support group meetings	·Outcome expectations	- Weekly task report
2nd week	·General guidance for walking activity	·Learning via e-mail	·Self-regulation	. Process evaluation
	- Walking time, frequency intensity, and posture	·Learning via e-mail	- Goal setting	- Weekly task report
			- Self monitoring
3rd week	·Improving daily walking activity	·Learning via e-mail	·Self-regulation	. Process evaluation
	- Strategy for daily walking activity	·Delivery via e-mail	- Planning	- Weekly task report
	·Customized walking guidance	·Individual telecoaching
4th week	·Dealing with high-risk situations	·Learning via e-mail	·Self-efficacy	. Process evaluation
4th week	- Exercise barriers and coping strategy	·Learning via e-mail	- Improving physical and emotional status	- Weekly task report
5th week	·Getting social support	·Learning via e-mail	·Self-regulation	. Process evaluation
5th week	- Communication strategy depending on the situation	·Learning via e-mail	- Enlistment of social support	- Weekly task report
6th week	·Posttest (Primary)	·Questionnaire & body measurement	·Self-efficacy	. Process evaluation
	·Sharing personal experience	·Support group meetings	- Vicarious experience	- Participation in posttest (primary)
			- Mastery experience
7th week	·Managing positive inner dialogue	·Learning via e-mail	·Self-regulation	. Process evaluation
7th week	- Strategy for positive self-talk	·Learning via e-mail	- Self-instruction	- Weekly task report
8th week	·Individual interim performance analysis	·Delivery via e-mail	·Self-regulation	. Process evaluation
	- Coaching based on interim performance	·Individual telecoaching	- Self-reward	- Moderate intensity steps count
				- Walking activity score
				- Physiological index
9th week	·Rebuilding personal practice for lasting walking activity	·Learning via e-mail	·Self-regulation	. Process evaluation
	- Replanning based on performance checklist		- Feedback	- Weekly task report
			- Goal setting
10th week	·Post-test (Secondary)	·Questionnaire & body measurement	·Self-efficacy	. Process evaluation
	·Sharing personal experience	·Support group meeting	- Vicarious experience	- Participation in post-test (Secondary)
	·Individual final performance analysis	·Delivery via e-mail	- Mastery experience	. Outcome evaluation
				- Moderate intensity steps count
				- Walking activity score
				- Physiological index

Table 2.

Homogeneity Test of Sociodemographic Characteristics and Study Variables between Experimental and Control Group (N=50)

Characteristics	Categories	Exp. (n=26)	Cont. (n=24)	x² or U	p
Characteristics	Categories	n (%) or M±SD	n (%) or M±SD	x² or U	p
Gender	Male	8 (30.8)	4 (16.7)	1.36	.243
Gender	Female	18 (69.2)	20 (83.3)
Age (year)		37.2±9.8	38.1±8.4	273.50	.454
	＜40	19 (73.1)	16 (66.7)	0.24	.621
	≥40	7 (26.9)	8 (33.3)
Education level^†	Middle and high school	1 (3.8)	3 (12.5)		.340
Education level^†	College	25 (96.2)	21 (87.5)
Transportation time (min)		76.40±53.06	79.38±74.31	271.50	.564
Type of transportation^†	Public or walking	23 (88.5)	21 (87.5)		1.000
Type of transportation^†	Owner-driven car	3 (11.5)	3 (12.5)
Alcohol drinker	Yes	19 (73.1)	14 (58.3)	1.21	.272
Alcohol drinker	No	7 (26.9)	10 (41.7)
Smoker^†	Yes	4 (15.4)	1 (4.2)		.351
Smoker^†	No	22 (84.6)	23 (95.8)
Eating pattern	Yes	16 (61.5)	12 (50.0)	0.67	.412
with high calorie	No	10 (38.5)	12 (50.0)
Morbidity^†‡	Yes	5 (19.2)	4 (16.7)		1.000
Morbidity^†‡	No	21 (80.8)	20 (83.3)
Social cognitive	Self-efficacy (score)	40.04±18.29	40.91±13.10	287.50	.634
variables	Outcome expectations (score)	3.89±0.59	4.18±0.47	217.50	.066
Working activity	Walking activity score (MET-min)	294.46±210.88	277.75±218.34	288.50	.647
Working activity	Moderate-intensity steps^§(steps)	4,527.96±2,046.74	4,880.05±1,972.23	240.50	.462
Physiological indexes	Body mass index (kg/m²)	23.2±3.5	23.6±3.6	287.00	.627
	Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)	117.40±15.71	116.67±10.72	306.50	.915
	Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)	81.98±11.33	80.98±10.72	305.00	.892

Exp.=experimental group; Cont.=control group.

^† Fisher's exact test;

^‡ Those who have been diagnosed at least one disease among hypertension, diabetes, arthritis, gastrointestinal diseases;

^§ The measurement outcomes about moderate-intensity steps during first week after starting intervention (Exp. n=25, Cont. n=22).

Table 3.

Differences in Social Cognitive Variables, Walking Activity and Physiological Indexes within Groups and between Groups (N=50)

Study variables	Pretest		at 6th week		at 10th week		Within groups				Between groups
	Pretest		at 6th week		at 10th week		Pretest vs. 6th week		Pretest vs. 10th week		at 6th week	at 10th week
	Exp. (n=26)	Cont. (n=24)	Exp. (n=26)	Cont. (n=24)	Exp. (n=26)	Cont. (n=24)	Exp. (n=26)	Cont. (n=24)	Exp. (n=26)	Cont. (n=24)	Exp. (n=26)	Cont. (n=24)
	n (%) or M±SD		n (%) or M±SD		n (%) or M±SD		Z (p)		Z (p)		x² or U (p)	x² or U (p)
Self-efficacy (score)	40.04	40.90	45.41	46.69	50.37	46.18	-1.55	-1.59	-2.26	-1.02	305.00	255.50
Self-efficacy (score)	(18.29)	(13.10)	(18.29)	(15.64)	(20.34)	(17.04)	(.121)	(.113)	(.024)	(.310)	(.892)	(.272)
Outcome expectations (score)	3.89	4.18	3.89	4.08	4.06	4.17	-0.45	-0.73	-1.65	-0.02	237.50	272.50
Outcome expectations (score)	(0.59)	(0.47)	(0.45)	(0.51)	(0.49)	(0.55)	(.650)	(.467)	(.099)	(.983)	(.146)	(.441)
Walking activity scores (MET-min)	294.46	277.75	872.60	503.25	707.60	489.50	-3.63	-2.86	-3.11	-2.54	206.50	251.50
Walking activity scores (MET-min)	(210.88)	(218.34)	(803.01)	(401.14)	(571.39)	(347.84)	(＜.001)	) (.004)	(.002)	(.011)	(.040)	(.239)
The number of participants following walking protocol (persons)	0	0	17	7	16	8	–^†	–^†	–^†	–^†	6.56	3.98
	(0.0)	(0.0)	(65.4)	(29.2)	(61.5)	(33.3)	―^†	―^†	―^†	―^†	(.010)	(.046)
Body mass index (kg/m²)	23.2	23.6	23.1	23.6	23.1	23.8	-1.63	-0.26	-1.50	-1.88	287.50	274.00
Body mass index (kg/m²)	(3.5)	(3.6)	(3.6)	(3.6)	(3.6)	(3.50)	(.104)	(.793)	(.134)	(.060)	(.634)	(.460)
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)	117.40	116.67	115.52	115.56	116.58	116.02	-1.14	-0.77	-0.47	-0.31	307.50	301.50
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)	(15.71)	(10.82)	(13.03)	(11.11)	(15.72)	(12.94)	(.252)	(.442)	(.637)	(.708)	(.930)	(.838)
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)	81.98	80.98	78.35	82.00	82.50	79.35	-2.52	-0.55	-0.19	-0.62	269.50	266.50
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)	(11.33)	(10.72)	(9.21)	(10.46)	(12.86)	(10.13)	(.012)	(.580)	(.852)	(.537)	(.408)	(.375)

	at 1st week		at 6th week		at 10th week		1st week vs. 6th week		1st week vs. 10th week		at 6th week	at 10th week
	Exp.	Cont.	Exp.	Cont.	Exp.	Cont.	Exp.	Cont.	Exp.	Cont.	Exp.	Cont.
	(n=24)	(n=17)	(n=24)	(n=17)	(n=24)	(n=17)	(n=24)	(n=17)	(n=24)	(n=17)	(n=24)	(n=17)
Moderate-intensity steps^‡ (steps)	4,484.79	5,365.82	4,729.25	4,613.59	5,040.49	3,583.24	-0.40	-2.30	-0.03	-3.48	199.00	136.00
Moderate-intensity steps^‡ (steps)	(2,079.11)	(1,684.46)	(2,211.88)	(1,815.84)	(2,861.09)	(1,644.44)	(.689)	(.022)	(.977)	(.001)	(.895)	(.072)

†The statistical analysis within groups could not be performed because the number of participants following walking protocol was'0' in pretest; ‡Included only those who had completed all three measurements of moderate-intensity steps at 1st week, 6th week and 10th week.

TOOLS

Similar articles