Office Workers’ Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to Taking Regular Micro-breaks at Work: A Diary-Probed Interview Study
Research has suggested regular breaks in sedentary office work are important for health, wellbeing and long-term productivity. Although many computerized break reminders exist, few are based on user needs and requirements as determined by formative research. This paper reports empirical findings from a diary-probed interview study with 20 office workers on their perceived barriers and facilitators to taking regular micro-breaks at work. This work makes two contributions to the Persuasive Technology (PT) community: a diagnosis of the full range of determinants and levers for changing office work break behaviours; a demonstration of applying the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW), an intervention development framework originating from Health Psychology, to elicit theory-based design recommendations for a potential PT.
KeywordsWorkplace sedentary behaviour Requirement elicitation method
We would like to thank Kathryn Morgan and Rachael Travers for helping transcribe interviews, and Anna Roberts for reviewing the coding and intervention mapping. This research was supported by the Horizon Centre for Doctoral Training at the University of Nottingham (RCUK Grant No. EP/L015463/1) and by the RCUK’s Horizon Digital Economy Research Institute (RCUK Grant No. EP/G065802/1) and Unilever UK Ltd. The study received ethics approval from School of Computer Science Ethics Committee, University of Nottingham.
- 1.Aarts, H., Custers, R.: Unconscious goal pursuit: nonconscious goal regulation and motivation. In: Ryan, R. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation, pp. 232–247. Oxford University Press, New York (2012)Google Scholar
- 4.Cirillo, F.: The Pomodoro Technique. FC Garage, Berlin (2013)Google Scholar
- 5.Consolvo, S., et al.: Theory-driven design strategies for technologies that support behavior change in everyday life. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 2009, pp. 405–414 (2009)Google Scholar
- 6.Fogg, B.: A behavior model for persuasive design. In: The 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, p. 40. ACM Press, New York (2009)Google Scholar
- 10.Herrmanny, K., Ziegler, J., Dogangün, A.: Supporting users in setting effective goals in activity tracking. In: Meschtscherjakov, A., Ruyter, B., Fuchsberger, V., Murer, M., Tscheligi, M. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9638, pp. 15–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-31510-2_2 Google Scholar
- 11.Jett, Q.R., George, J.M.: Work interrupted: a closer look at the role of interruptions in organizational life. Acad. Manage. Rev. 28, 494–507 (2003)Google Scholar
- 12.Mark, G., et al.: No task left behind? Examining the nature of fragmented work. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 2005, pp. 321–330 (2005)Google Scholar
- 13.Michie, S., et al.: The Behaviour Change Wheel: A Guide to Designing Interventions. Silverback Publishing, London (2014)Google Scholar
- 18.Srivastava, A., Thomson, S.B.: Framework analysis: a qualitative methodology for applied policy research. J. Adm. Gov. 4(2), 72–79 (2009)Google Scholar
- 21.Züger, M., Fritz, T.: Interruptibility of software developers and its prediction using psycho-physiological sensors. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 2015, pp. 2981–2990 (2015)Google Scholar