Background

Sedentary behaviour (SB) is defined as ‘any waking behaviour characterized by an energy expenditure ≤ 1.5 metabolic equivalents (METs) while in a sitting, reclining, or lying posture’. High levels and prolonged bouts of SB have been associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality, type 2 diabetes, some cancers, cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, anxiety, and depression. Some evidence suggests that interrupting prolonged bouts of SB with short bouts of light to moderate physical activity (PA) can yield positive effects on cardiometabolic parameters, which may be more beneficial than interrupting sitting with standing.

Desk-based workers spend large amounts (between 58% and 82%) of their working day seated, often in uninterrupted bouts. This exposes them to the adverse health implications associated with SB, including increased risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and all-cause mortality. Existing interventions for office-based employees often target one or more of the complex and interacting elements that influence SB, including individual, environmental, political, and social factors. There exists a large number of office-based SB interventions, including the provision of sit-stand workstations, information, prompts, management support, and appointing team leaders, although study quality is often poor with mixed effectiveness for reducing workplace SB. Interventions that target numerous levels of influence via multi-components appear to be more effective.

Levels of hybrid working increased following COVID-19, allowing employees to work from home (WFH). For employees who began WFH during the pandemic, systematic reviews show increases in SB, with one citing an increase of 16%. Research examining the introduction of a flexible working policy prior to the pandemic has also reported both an actual, and perceived, increase in occupational SB. Whilst WFH has benefits, the intersection between work and home life will likely result in unique influences on SB, with evidence suggesting interventions for the office may not directly translate to the home, demanding novel approaches.

Older employees (≥ 50 years) form one third of the UK workforce and may experience different challenges compared to their younger counterparts due to a range of physical, psychological, and social characteristics. Older workers are more likely to be managing numerous health conditions, with ill-health a key reason for leaving work. Moreover, many older workers who leave work early have a desire to return but face barriers relating to health, caring responsibilities, poor workplace flexibility, inadequate support, and age discrimination. Although granular data are limited, many older employees in desk-based roles have the option to WFH, making it important to understand how this setting influences their sitting behaviours. Prolonged SB and the associated health risks are an occupational hazard and given that employers have a legal duty of care to protect employee health and provide safe working conditions, they have a responsibility to prevent harm and promote good health before retirement, which can be achieved via evidence-based interventions.

When developing interventions, efforts should be made to consider the unique workplace context, engage with relevant stakeholders, and identify key uncertainties. The application of behaviour change theories and frameworks will also be necessary to hypothesise why a behaviour does, or does not, occur. The Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) integrates 19 behaviour change frameworks to support intervention design and evaluation. Its core, the COM-B model, conceptualises behaviour as arising from interactions between Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation, and can be used with the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to analyse complex behaviours. The TDF synthesises constructs from 33 behavioural theories into 14 domains, providing a comprehensive, theory-informed framework to support the development of behaviour change interventions. These 14 domains can be mapped to the COM-B model and include: Knowledge; Skills; Social/Professional Role and Identity; Beliefs about Capabilities; Optimism; Beliefs about Consequences; Reinforcement; Intentions; Goals; Memory, Attention and Decision Processes; Environmental Context and Resources; Social Influences; Emotions; and Behavioural Regulation.

Combining the COM-B and TDF has been used to explain workplace SB and develop tailored interventions in office settings. Only one intervention, the multi-component Stand More AT (SMArT) Work, has been successfully tested as a large-scale randomised controlled trial, reporting significant reductions in workplace SB. Combining the COM-B, TDF, and BCW to explore SB in the homeworking setting is sparse. Niven et al., used the COM-B to examine the sitting behaviours of homeworking university employees. The sample, on average, spent 89.5% of their time sitting and a range of barriers to interrupting sitting were identified, including work demands, being immersed in work, belief of negative impact on productivity, and a lack of intention to reduce sitting. Unique findings related to the lack of space and equipment in the home, as well as a social pressure to remain seated, suggesting that social norms and expectations relating to sitting behaviours persist via digital communication. This present study extends on the work by Niven by focusing specifically on older employees, an underexamined group, and integrating the COM-B and TDF to provide a comprehensive behavioural analysis of SB in the home environment.

A more in-depth qualitative exploration of influencing factors in the home environment is essential, especially in older employees, to develop suitable interventions. Thus, this study sought to use both the COM-B and TDF to explore how older employees understand and experience SB when WFH, and to answer the research question of ‘what barriers and enablers to interrupting SB exist for older employees when WFH?’.

Methods

This qualitative study is the first stage of a project aiming to develop an intervention to reduce and interrupt SB in a group of older employees aged ≥ 50 when WFH in desk-based occupations. The study is reported in line with the COnsolidated Criteria for REporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ), which can be found in Supplementary file 1, including more detail regarding the philosophical position and reflexivity of this work.

This study adopted a qualitative methodology to allow for an in-depth exploration of individual employees’ experiences and to uncover the nuanced multi-level influences on SB in an under-researched setting. To capture each participant’s unique perspective while ensuring confidentiality, one-to-one semi-structured interviews were used rather than focus groups. Semi-structured interviews allow for a flexible conversation, whilst the presence of a structure ensures sufficient data is collected on the topic.

A convenience sample of 22 participants were recruited from a local council workplace in Greater Manchester, most of whom identified as White, which is acknowledged as a limitation. There was no relationship between the researcher and participants before the commencement of the study. A recruitment email was circulated by a member of the employer’s wellbeing steering group and also shared with the employer’s diversity group. Eligibility criteria included: aged ≥ 50 years old, predominantly desk-based job role, work from home at least two days per week (or part-time equivalent), and able to stand up and walk.

Results

Twenty-two interviews were conducted between February and March 2024. The inductive analysis led to the development of six themes.

Theme 1: Ambiguous knowledge of sedentary behaviour (psychological capability and reflective motivation)

Theme 2: Nature and demand of professional role in conflict with behaviour change (reflexive motivation, automatic motivation, and physical opportunity)

Theme 3: Lack of conscious action in relation to sedentary behaviour(psychological capability, reflective motivation, and physical opportunity)

Theme 4: Health as potential motivator for older employees (reflexive motivation and automatic motivation)

Theme 5: There is hope for targeting workplace sitting at home (reflexive motivation and automatic motivation)

Theme 6: Interrupting SB is not actively embedded in homeworking culture (reflective motivation, automatic motivation, physical opportunity, and social opportunity)

Conclusions

This study addresses a gap in the literature by considering how older workers who WFH experience SB, using a rigorous and theory-driven methodology. A range of factors were reported and mapped across the COM-B and TDF, indicating the complexity of workplace SB. Reflective motivation will likely be critical in changing behaviour with all themes linking to this component. Moreover, the most referenced TDF domains (Social/professional role and identity; Beliefs about consequences; Emotion; and Environmental context and resources) all explore the impact changing SB may have on one’s identity as an employee when WFH, demonstrating the importance of balancing an intervention with the roles and responsibilities of employment, and the influence of organisational culture.

Participants highlighted some known barriers, specifically those relating to ambiguous knowledge, organisational culture, the habitual nature of SB, the priority placed on work tasks, and the role of the physical environment. A key contribution of this paper is that the home environment is a major influencing factor on workplace sitting, opening up possible avenues for future research.

These findings have practical implications for intervention design, emphasising the need for low-cost and feasible strategies such as increasing knowledge, enhancing management support, and using digitally delivered prompts. In terms of policy, organisations could consider implementing flexible meeting policies and encouraging regular breaks to create a supportive homeworking environment that facilitates the interruption of prolonged sitting. In addition, health appears to be important for older workers and can be used to target motivation when developing suitable interventions in this group. Based on the findings of this study, there is a need to develop low-cost interventions that could be feasibly delivered across a range of home and hybrid settings. Whilst employees of all age groups will likely benefit from such an intervention, it may be particularly useful for older workers who may experience health challenges. Given the rise of homeworking, the dangers associated with prolonged sitting, and our ageing workforce, this study is an important contribution to the literature. Subsequent work would benefit from utilising the BCW and COM-B model to identify appropriate intervention functions, policy options, and behaviour change techniques in a systematic and theory-driven approach.

Full Publication 

Interrupting sedentary behaviour when working from home: a qualitative exploration of older desk-based employees (BMC Public Health)

Date

February 2026

Related