The effect of a multi-strategy workplace physical activity intervention promoting pedometer use and step count increase

Pedometer use and step count goals have become popular in physical activity (PA) interventions in different settings. Previous pedometer-based workplace interventions were short term, uncontrolled and executed outside Europe. This European quasi-experimental study evaluated the effects of a 20-week pedometer-based PA workplace intervention. Pedometer-based and self-reported PA from one intervention worksite (68 participants at follow-up) was compared with the data of a comparison workplace (79 participants at follow-up). A downward trend in overall step counts from baseline (end of summer) to follow-up (winter) was found (F = 3.3, P = 0.071). However, the intervention effect revealed a significant smaller decrease in the intervention workplace (-618 steps/day) than in the comparison workplace (-1389 steps/day) (F = 8.8, P = 0.004). This intervention effect was only present in already active participants, reaching 10 000 steps/day at baseline (intervention participants: -1706 steps/day; comparison participants: -4006 steps/day) (F = 5.5, P = 0.023). Overall project awareness was very high (97%) and the intervention strategies were judged 'good to very good' by 57-95% of the participants. However, the proportion of intervention participants reporting that they had changed their PA behavior because of the intervention (31%) and reporting that they had used the pedometer during the intervention (48%) was limited. Future workplace projects should give extra attention to inactive employees.Pedometer use and step count goals have become popular in physical activity (PA) interventions in different settings. Previous pedometer-based workplace interventions were short term, uncontrolled and executed outside Europe. This European quasi-experimental study evaluated the effects of a 20-week pedometer-based PA workplace intervention. Pedometer-based and self-reported PA from one intervention worksite (68 participants at follow-up) was compared with the data of a comparison workplace (79 participants at follow-up). A downward trend in overall step counts from baseline (end of summer) to follow-up (winter) was found (F = 3.3, P = 0.071). However, the intervention effect revealed a significant smaller decrease in the intervention workplace (-618 steps/day) than in the comparison workplace (-1389 steps/day) (F = 8.8, P = 0.004). This intervention effect was only present in already active participants, reaching 10 000 steps/day at baseline (intervention participants: -1706 steps/day; comparison participants: -4006 steps/day) (F = 5.5, P = 0.023). Overall project awareness was very high (97%) and the intervention strategies were judged 'good to very good' by 57-95% of the participants. However, the proportion of intervention participants reporting that they had changed their PA behavior because of the intervention (31%) and reporting that they had used the pedometer during the intervention (48%) was limited. Future workplace projects should give extra attention to inactive employees.A