Mukaruzima L1,2, Frantz J3
1University of the Western Cape, Physiotherapy, Cape Town, South Africa, 2Rwanda Military University Hospital, Physiotherapy, Kigali, Rwanda, 3University of the Western Cape, Administration, Cape Town, South Africa
Background: Physical inactivity is one of the major risk factors of non-communicable diseases that are a threat to public health. Office workers who spend most of their time siting are highly exposed to such health risks. The nature of their work which normally involve passive activities like use of computers, phones and photocopiers and use of elevators renders them to be insufficiently active. Office workers need to be physically active in order to gain the related health benefits. These include: increased work productivity, reduce blood pressure levels, weight management as well as minimizing sedentary behaviour.
Purpose: While the health benefits of being physically active are well acknowledged, policy strategies to promote health enhancing physical activity are still a challenge. There are inequalities with respect to efforts invested in addressing inactivity as a risky behaviour as compared to other unhealthy behaviors such as smoking, alcohol and drug abuse.This paper thus highlights some of the factors that motivate or hinder government office workers' participation in LTPA. These may then inform policy interventions with respect to promoting physical activity among government office workers at risk.
Methods: A cross-sectional, descriptive quantitative design was used to assess and describe the levels of LTPA among government office workers in Kigali City. Highlighted as well, were the various factors that influence their participation, which were aligned to the socio-ecological model perspective. A three part customized questionnaire was employed to gather data. Part one of the questionnaire captured the demographic data of the respondents. Part two, the Godin-Shephard questionnaire, assessed their levels of leisure time physical activity, and the last part, with open-ended questions, assessed the factors that influenced their participation.
Results: Majority of the respondents (61%) were not sufficiently active. Statistical significance was found between physical activity levels and age (x2=11.05, df =1, p=.004), as well as with working experiences (x2=12.05, df=2, p=.002). Of the various reasons that motivated respondents to engage in LTPA, prevention of diseases and to have good health, were the most prevalent (32%), while time and tight work schedules were the most frequent reasons (53%) that hindered their participation.
Conclusion(s): Despite the presence of a sports policy in Rwanda which is mandated among others to promote “sports for all” among Rwandans especially government employees, the majority of respondents did not engage in sufficient leisure time physical activity to gain health benefits. Future research could be conducted focusing on context-specific health-enhancing physical activity strategies among government office workers.
Implications: The results of this survey may serve as evidence to influence the decisions of policy makers, to develop effective strategies that are context specific to government office workers in Kigali, Rwanda.
Keywords: Physical activity, Health, Office workers
Funding acknowledgements: The National Research Foundation, South Africa
Purpose: While the health benefits of being physically active are well acknowledged, policy strategies to promote health enhancing physical activity are still a challenge. There are inequalities with respect to efforts invested in addressing inactivity as a risky behaviour as compared to other unhealthy behaviors such as smoking, alcohol and drug abuse.This paper thus highlights some of the factors that motivate or hinder government office workers' participation in LTPA. These may then inform policy interventions with respect to promoting physical activity among government office workers at risk.
Methods: A cross-sectional, descriptive quantitative design was used to assess and describe the levels of LTPA among government office workers in Kigali City. Highlighted as well, were the various factors that influence their participation, which were aligned to the socio-ecological model perspective. A three part customized questionnaire was employed to gather data. Part one of the questionnaire captured the demographic data of the respondents. Part two, the Godin-Shephard questionnaire, assessed their levels of leisure time physical activity, and the last part, with open-ended questions, assessed the factors that influenced their participation.
Results: Majority of the respondents (61%) were not sufficiently active. Statistical significance was found between physical activity levels and age (x2=11.05, df =1, p=.004), as well as with working experiences (x2=12.05, df=2, p=.002). Of the various reasons that motivated respondents to engage in LTPA, prevention of diseases and to have good health, were the most prevalent (32%), while time and tight work schedules were the most frequent reasons (53%) that hindered their participation.
Conclusion(s): Despite the presence of a sports policy in Rwanda which is mandated among others to promote “sports for all” among Rwandans especially government employees, the majority of respondents did not engage in sufficient leisure time physical activity to gain health benefits. Future research could be conducted focusing on context-specific health-enhancing physical activity strategies among government office workers.
Implications: The results of this survey may serve as evidence to influence the decisions of policy makers, to develop effective strategies that are context specific to government office workers in Kigali, Rwanda.
Keywords: Physical activity, Health, Office workers
Funding acknowledgements: The National Research Foundation, South Africa
Topic: Health promotion & wellbeing/healthy ageing; Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) & risk factors; Occupational health & ergonomics
Ethics approval required: Yes
Institution: University of the Western Cape
Ethics committee: Senate Research Ethics Committee
Ethics number: 39643
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
