Advertisement

Office Workers’ Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to Taking Regular Micro-breaks at Work: A Diary-Probed Interview Study

  • Yitong Huang
  • Steve Benford
  • Hilde Hendrickx
  • Rob Treloar
  • Holly Blake
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10171)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Workplace sedentary behaviour Requirement elicitation method 

Notes

Acknowledgement

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. 2.
    Bargh, J.A., Ferguson, M.J.: Beyond behaviorism: on the automaticity of higher mental processes. Psychol. Bull. 126(6), 925–945 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cane, J., et al.: Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement. Sci. 7(1), 37 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cirillo, F.: The Pomodoro Technique. FC Garage, Berlin (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 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. 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
  7. 7.
    Francis, J.J., et al.: Evidence-based selection of theories for designing behaviour change interventions: using methods based on theoretical construct domains to understand clinicians’ blood transfusion behaviour. Br. J. Health Psychol. 14(Pt 4), 625–646 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    French, S.D., et al.: Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: a systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Implement. Sci. 7(1), 38 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fritz, C., et al.: It’s the little things that matter: an examination of knowledge workers’ energy management. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 25, 28–39 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. 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. 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. 13.
    Michie, S., et al.: The Behaviour Change Wheel: A Guide to Designing Interventions. Silverback Publishing, London (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Owen, N., et al.: Too much sitting: a novel and important predictor of chronic disease risk? Br. J. Sports Med. 43(2), 81–83 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pate, R.R., et al.: The evolving definition of “sedentary”. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 36(4), 173–178 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prochaska, J.O., Velicer, W.F.: The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am. J. Heal. Promot. AJHP 12(1), 38–48 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ryan, C.G., et al.: Sitting patterns at work: objective measurement of adherence to current recommendations. Ergonomics 54(6), 531–538 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 19.
    Tremblay, M.S., et al.: Physiological and health implications of a sedentary lifestyle. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 35(6), 725–740 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    West, R.: Time for a change: putting the Transtheoretical (Stages of Change) Model to rest. Addiction 100, 1036–1040 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yitong Huang
    • 1
  • Steve Benford
    • 1
  • Hilde Hendrickx
    • 2
  • Rob Treloar
    • 2
  • Holly Blake
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  2. 2.Unilever R&DSharnbrookUK

Personalised recommendations