Is Activity-based Working Impacting Health Work Performance and Perceptions? A Systematic Review
Int J Environ Res Public Wellness. 2021 Jul; eighteen(xiv): 7640.
Productivity, Satisfaction, Work Environs and Health subsequently Relocation to an Action-Based Flex Office—The Active Office Design Study
Mette S. Harder
2Umeå Schoolhouse of Architecture, Umeå Academy, 901 87 Umeå, Sweden; es.umu@redrah.ettem
Christina Bodin Danielsson
4The Majestic Constitute of Technology (KTH), School of Architecture and the Built Environment, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden; es.htk@nadrhc
Ivo Iavicoli, Academic Editor
Received 2021 Jun 9; Accepted 2021 Jul 14.
- Data Availability Argument
-
The full information are not publicly bachelor due to upstanding/privacy reasons. Anonymous data are available for scientific purposes on request from the corresponding author.
Abstruse
Implementation of activeness-based flex offices (AFOs) are condign increasingly common. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of an AFO on perceived productivity, satisfaction, work environs and health. Questionnaire data from the longitudinal, quasi-experimental Active Office Blueprint Study was used. The written report evaluates a public arrangement relocating staff to either an AFO or to cell offices. Measures from baseline, 6 and 18 months subsequently relocation, were analyzed. Employees in the AFO experienced a decreased productivity and satisfaction with the office design. Lack of privacy every bit well as increased racket disturbance, less satisfaction with sit comfort and work posture were reported. Employees in the AFO with work tasks requiring a loftier degree of concentration experienced lower productivity while those with a high proportion of teamwork rated productivity to exist continually high. No significant grouping differences were found between the 2 part types in full general health, cognitive stress, salutogenic health indicators or hurting in the neck, shoulder or dorsum. The study highlights the importance of taking work characteristics into account in the planning and implementation process of an AFO. Flexible and interactive tasks seem more appropriate in an AFO, whereas individual tasks demanding concentration seem less fit.
Keywords: activity-based piece of work, job performance, longitudinal study, new means of working, occupational health, office worker
ane. Introduction
In recent decades, work in function surroundings has become more common [one,2]. The development has introduced many flexible role solutions [three]. In activity-based flex offices (AFOs), employees accept no assigned workstations, but cull a workplace suited for the task to be performed. In AFOs activity-based working (ABW) is applied which includes an almost entirely paperless work environment. New and better information and communication technology (ICT) solutions has made this possible. The AFO is usually dimensioned to business firm fewer than 70% of the employees [4] and is thus suggested to reduce facility costs. Furthermore, information technology is promoted for increased flexibility, more than social interaction and college piece of work satisfaction [5,6].
Increment in productivity and piece of work operation are aspects often highlighted when promoting AFO designs [7,viii], but enquiry is yet sparse in these areas and findings are inconsistent. In a systematic review on AFO interventions, the majority of the studies included reported positive outcomes on perceived productivity and work performance [9], while other studies take shown a decrease in perceived productivity, especially when moving from cell offices to an AFO [10,11]. A study among workers in open plan offices evaluating impact of role environment on perceived productivity found differences between gender and historic period groups [12]. To our knowledge at that place are no studies performed specifically in AFOs on productivity in relation to age and gender.
Improved satisfaction with aspects of the concrete piece of work environment after relocation to an activity-based office environs have been shown in some studies, whereas other have reported negative outcomes such as increased noise lark and lack of privacy [nine,xiii,xiv]. Moreover, difficulties with concentration in AFOs have been reported, particularly when comparing to cell offices [ix].
Unlike work tasks may be amend suited to unlike types of office. Seddigh et al. plant for instance that work tasks requiring a high degree of concentration were less suitable for open role designs [ane]. In contrast, studies have shown a positive impact on communication and collaboration in AFOs, indicating that such work characteristics may be better supported by more flexible office settings [9]. However, employees' satisfaction with communication, likewise as privacy, also bear on productivity in AFOs [fifteen]. In a recent written report, Hoendervanger et al. [16], showed that it seems to exist particularly important to optimize the workers perceived fit and user behavior, to facilitate and stimulate individual high-concentration work. Interestingly, no longitudinal studies have investigated if and how productivity in AFOs is influenced depending on the actual work tasks.
Research on the affect of AFOs on health is inconsistent and thus bear witness is express [9]. In a cross-sectional written report the best health and highest chore satisfaction were seen amidst employees in cell- and flex-offices [17]. However, Meijer et al. [18] institute a pregnant comeback in self-rated general health, whereas health was reported to be significantly lower later on relocating from fixed workstations to an AFO-like environment in a controlled intervention written report [19].
Many studies evaluating AFOs have been criticized for lacking a thorough description of the working weather condition and how the workplace is designed to support ABW [9], and just a few studies take investigated the effects on perceived productivity, satisfaction, work environment and health when moving from a prison cell office to an AFO with a longitudinal design. In addition, virtually studies have been conducted in organizations operating in the private sector [9]. Since AFOs are becoming increasingly popular and introduced at a big scale also in the public sector, in that location is an urgent need to gain knowledge from this sector as well, especially every bit the effects on productivity and health may differ [9,20]. Moreover, it is essential to further investigate how dissimilar work tasks may influence productivity in AFOs.
The primary aim of this report was to investigate effects on perceived productivity, satisfaction, work environment and health in a group of municipal officials moving from cell offices to an AFO, and to compare with colleagues who moved from cell offices to other jail cell offices. The secondary aim was to investigate possible impacts of gender, age and type of piece of work tasks on productivity in the AFO.
We hypothesized that (1) there is no deviation in perceived productivity, satisfaction, work environment and wellness betwixt the two role groups over time, (2) in the AFO, employees with piece of work tasks requiring loftier caste of concentration will feel a lower productivity and (iii) employees with piece of work tasks requiring a high level of collaboration and communication will experience an increased productivity in the AFO. The research question and hypotheses were investigated past using data from the Active Office Design Study (AOD Written report) and past applying longitudinal data analysis to compare the results from AFOs and prison cell offices.
two. Materials and Methods
2.ane. Design and Settings
The AOD Written report is a longitudinal, non-randomized, quasi-experimental study with a reference grouping. During 2015, white-collar workers in a medium-sized Swedish municipality (approx. 56,000 inhabitants) relocated to new role environments. Out of 374 employees, approximately twoscore% relocated to new cell offices and 60% to an AFO. The bulk of the participants in the report had individual workstations in unmarried cell offices or shared rooms prior to the relocation. The group that moved to new cell offices primarily worked in social services (welfare office and social workers), while the group that moved to the AFO included employees in departments of instruction, urban planning, economy and human resource. In addition, politicians relocated to the AFO. The relocation to the different role settings was predetermined by the employer and both office groups relocated to renovated office buildings. The cell office building was organized on three floors with mainly unmarried cell offices and some shared rooms. The AFO consisted of three floors, with the open program office areas located on the second and 3rd floor, equipped with workstations, as well equally supporting areas including jail cell offices, sofas, group-and touchdown tables and different-sized meeting rooms. Make clean-desk policy as well equally new ICT solutions were implemented in both function buildings. For more detailed information, meet Appendix A, Table A1. During the projection period, there was a marked influx of refugees in Sweden, resulting in an increase in staff density in both groups and a loftier people to workstation ratio in the AFO.
All employees involved in the relocation were invited to participate in the AOD Study past answering a questionnaire asking about groundwork characteristics, perceived productivity, satisfaction with the office design, work environment and health. The study included ane baseline measurement 6 months prior to relocation, and two follow-upwardly measurements, 6 and 18 months later relocation. The questionnaires were distributed at the workplace to ensure a high response charge per unit and written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to participation. Ethical approval was received from The Regional Upstanding Committee in Sweden (No: 2104/226-31).
Due to the staff turnover also as possible absence at whatever given time (i.east., due to parental leave, leave of absence, sick get out, retirement etc.) the study participants were not identical at the dissimilar measurement occasions. To attain as accurate results as possible and to be able to do longitudinal analyses (follow the aforementioned individuals over fourth dimension), merely individuals with baseline data and at least one follow-up measurement was included in the analyses. For more detailed information on the written report population in total and at different timepoints, see Figure 1.
Flowchart of the original study population in full and at dissimilar time-points, including driblet-outs.
2.2. Employee and Work Characteristics
Information on gender, age, occupation, blazon and degree of employment, managerial position and office type before relocation were collected at baseline.
two.3. Work Tasks
The amount of computer work was registered at baseline and at follow-ups. For the 18-month follow-up, the participants were likewise asked to gauge the amount of h/week spent on unlike types of piece of work tasks such as individual concentration intensive piece of work tasks, teamwork in big groups (>3 people), individual routine piece of work mainly consisting of routine tasks and corporeality of work involving talking on the telephone. The participants besides rated the importance of spontaneous meetings for their piece of work by using a 5-betoken Likert calibration, with a depression value indicating spontaneous meetings being of swell importance.
two.4. Consequence Variables
2.4.1. Productivity and Satisfaction
Productivity was assessed past a questionnaire measuring perceived productivity and focuses on the employee'south experience of performance in relation to environmental conditions and bounds at the workplace [21]. It was translated from English to Swedish by using a forward-and back translation [22] and consists of 20 statements, such as "I am able to be productive in my present workspace", rated on a 5-point Likert scale. In the original article, the productivity scale was divided into subscales, all of which proved satisfactory internal consistency with Cronbach's alphas ranging between 0.67 and 0.89 [21]. For the present purposes, a global scale including all the subscales was used. The mean value of all items was used every bit outcome measure, a higher score indicating higher productivity. Satisfaction with the office was rated past answering the question:" How satisfied are you lot with the design of your current function?" on a 5-indicate Likert calibration ranging from one to v where 1 = "Very dissatisfied" and 5 = "Very satisfied".
2.4.ii. Psychosocial Work Environment
The Work Experience Measurement Scale (WEMS) [23], was used to assess the psychosocial work experience. It is comprised of 32 questions divided into the half dozen dimensions; (1) supportive working atmospheric condition (eastward.yard., "We encourage and back up each other at my workplace"), (two) internal work feel (e.g., "The work I perform is meaningful"), (three) autonomy (eastward.g., "I determine for myself how my work should exist washed"), (iv) time feel (e.g., "I can keep up with my work tasks during regular working hours"), (5) direction (e.g., "The manager is available when I need him/her") and (6) reorganization (e.k., "I received relevant data apropos the latest reorganization"). The questions were rated on a half dozen-signal Likert scale and indexes were calculated and standardized (range 0–100). A high score indicates a positive response. Cronbach's alphas ranged between 0.75 and 0.89 for the subdimensions, respectively [23], thus indicating satisfactory internal consistency.
two.iv.three. Physical Work Environment
Perception of the concrete environment was assessed past using validated questions concerning privacy, noise pollution, sit comfort and work posture [24]. Noise pollution was rated by using a v-point Likert scale (1 = "Not disturbed, 5 = "Very disturbed") where a high score indicated a high level of disturbance. The participants rated sit comfort and work posture (i = "Very good", 4 = "Very bad") and lack of privacy (1 = "Non at all", 4 = "To a keen extent") past using 4-bespeak Likert calibration. A high score indicated a poorer work posture and sit down comfort besides as a college degree of lack of privacy.
2.iv.four. Health
Full general health was assessed using ane particular (i.e., "In general, would you say your health is …") from the SF-36 musical instrument [25]. The answer was rated on a five-indicate Likert calibration (i = "Poor", five = "Excellent"), a high score indicating a loftier self-rated full general health. The Salutogenic Health Indicator Scale (SHIS) was used to assess well-being from a salutogenic perspective [26]. SHIS consists of 12 items including seven statements concerning well-beingness and 5 statements on how you operate and interact in relation to environmental demands. The items were rated on a half dozen-point Likert calibration, summarized into a "total SHIS index" and standardized to a scale from 0 to 100 where a high value indicates a high caste of perceived health. According to Bringsén et al. [26], Cronbach's alpha was 0.92 and thus satisfactory.
Cognitive stress was assessed by using four questions from the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) [27]. On a five-bespeak Likert calibration, participants were asked to rate how ofttimes, during the terminal month, they had had (1) difficulty concentrating, (ii) difficulty making decisions, (iii) trouble remembering and (4) difficulty thinking clearly. The mean value was used as event measure, a loftier score indicating a high level of cognitive stress. The internal consistency of the cognitive stress scale from COPSOQ has been expert with Cronbach's blastoff reported to exist 0.85 [27]. To appraise concrete discomfort, the participants rated occurrence of pain or discomfort from the neck/shoulders and back over the last three months using a 5-indicate Likert scale (1 = "Never", 5 = "E'er"); a higher score indicating a higher occurrence of discomfort [28].
2.five. Statistical Analyses
Participants with baseline data and data from at least ane follow-up measurement were included in the analyses. Differences in baseline characteristics between the groups (cell office vs AFO) were investigated by using contained samples t-examination and Pearson's Chi-square tests. For continuous variables (productivity, WEMS, SHIS and COPSOQ) linear mixed models were used to examine significant interaction effects and differences between groups. The models were prepare with grouping (two levels: AFO and cell office), fourth dimension (three levels; baseline, 6 months and eighteen months) and interaction (group ten time) equally stock-still factors. Random intercepts were used for the participants in all models. Model parameters were estimated through restricted maximum likelihood (REML). Within-grouping furnishings were analyzed using the estimated marginal ways of the fitted models. In a similar way, linear mixed models were set up upwards to examine secondary outcomes, i.e., factors affecting the productivity in the AFO group, with divergence over time presented as an interaction term. Some outcome variables (satisfaction, noise disturbance, sit down comfort, work posture, lack of privacy, neck/shoulder/back strain, full general health) were based on one-detail questions and did not fulfill the requirements for using parametric statistical testing. They were therefore converted into binary variables and then analyzed using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) resulting in odds ratios (OR). All analyses were adjusted for historic period and alpha was set to 0.05. Data were processed and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS; version 25; IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA).
3. Results
3.1. Baseline Characteristics
At baseline, 336 (91.3%) individuals answered the questionnaire. Out of these, 287 participants with baseline data and information from at least one follow-up measurement, 190 in the AFO group and 97 in the prison cell part group, were included in the analyses. The AFO group consisted of 61 men and 129 women and the cell part group of v men and 92 women. The mean age was 47.7 and 44.7, respectively. Baseline information are presented in Table 1. Statistically meaning differences between the office groups were seen for age (p < 0.01), sexual practice (p < 0.001), degree of employment (p < 0.01), proportion of managers (p < 0.001) and office blazon earlier relocation (p < 0.001). No significant difference was seen regarding self-rated general health.
Table 1
Baseline descriptions of participants in the action-based flex office (AFO) and cell office group, respectively.
| AFO (northward = 190) | Cell Office (n = 97) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | n (%) | Hateful (SD) | northward (%) | |
| Age 1 | 47.7 (10.3) | 44.seven (xi.ane) | ||
| Sex | ||||
| Female person | 129 (68) | 92 (95) | ||
| Male | 61 (32) | v (5) | ||
| Degree of Employment | ||||
| 100% | 177 (93.2) | 77 (79.4) | ||
| 75–99% | 12 (6.3) | 17 (17.5) | ||
| 40–74% | i (0.v) | ii (2.1) | ||
| Missing | - | 1 (ane.0) | ||
| Manager | ||||
| Yes | 51 (27) | three (iii) | ||
| No | 139 (73) | 93 (96) | ||
| Missing | - | 1 (one) | ||
| Office Type Earlier Relocation | ||||
| Jail cell office (1 person) | 126 (66) | 56 (58) | ||
| Shared room (two–3 persons) | twenty (11) | 39 (xl) | ||
| Open plan office | 23 (12) | 0 (0) | ||
| No assigned workspace | 17 (9) | ane (1) | ||
| Missing | 4 (ii) | 1 (1) | ||
| Cocky-Rated General Health | ||||
| Excellent | 28 (15) | 9 (9) | ||
| Very good | 88 (46) | 39 (40) | ||
| Good | 56 (30) | 32 (33) | ||
| Moderate | 15 (8) | 17 (18) | ||
| Poor | two (1) | 0 (0) | ||
| Missing | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0) | ||
| Missing |
3.ii. Productivity and Satisfaction
Group estimated means and odds ratios for perceived productivity and satisfaction, respectively, are displayed in Tabular array 2. There was a statistically significant group over time effect in productivity (p < 0.001), where the employees in the AFO rated a decline in productivity after relocation. Within group analysis showed a significant decrease in productivity in the AFO group at six months (p < 0.001), also equally at 18 months (p < 0.001) afterward relocation. There was no difference in productivity within the cell office at different time points. Results from the GEE analyses showed a meaning group over time result regarding satisfaction with the office pattern (p < 0.001). Employees who moved to the AFO rated a higher satisfaction at baseline compared to the employees moving to the cell role (OR = 5.32) but displayed a reduction in satisfaction with the role design at 6 months (OR = 1.12) and 18 months (OR = 0.86). Employees working in the jail cell offices on the other manus, reported increased satisfaction after relocation (OR 6 months = 2.96, OR 18 months = four.86).
Table ii
Comparisons of perceived productivity, satisfaction and psychosocial working weather condition (WEMS, Work Experience Measurement Scale) in the activity-based flex part (AFO) and cell office, expressed as estimated ways (EM) and odds ratios (OR). Difference betwixt the groups over time is expressed as grouping 10 fourth dimension event. For estimated means (EM), pairwise comparisons within groups are presented. Assuming indicates statistically meaning within group differences.
| AFO | Prison cell Office | p-Value for Group 10 Fourth dimension | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EM | OR | 95% CI | EM | OR | 95% CI | Effect | |
| Productivity | <0.001 | ||||||
| Baseline | 3.97 | three.89–iv.04 | 3.50 | 3.40–iii.sixty | |||
| half-dozen months | 3.fifty a | 3.41–iii.58 | 3.58 | three.46–3.70 | |||
| 18 months | 3.47 a | iii.38–3.55 | three.54 | 3.41–3.67 | |||
| Satisfaction with the Office Design | <0.001 | ||||||
| Baseline | 5.32 | 2.48–11.42 | i d | ||||
| 6 months | 1.12 | 0.63–2.00 | 2.96 | 1.26–seven.11 | |||
| 18 months | 0.86 | 0.48–1.54 | 4.86 | 1.59–xiv.8 | |||
| WEMS Supportive Working Condition | 0.006 | ||||||
| Baseline | 76.9 | 74.4–79.iii | 71.iv | 67.9–74.8 | |||
| 6 months | 72.0 a | 69.3–74.6 | 72.iii | 68.8–76.one | |||
| xviii months | 74.5 | 71.9–77.2 | 70.1 | 66.two–74.0 | |||
| Internal Work Feel | 0.07 | ||||||
| Baseline | 81.6 | 79.5–83.eight | 78.1 | 75.0–81.2 | |||
| half dozen months | 77.iii a | 74.8–79.7 | 77.1 | 73.7–lxxx.6 | |||
| xviii months | 77.9 b | 75.1–eighty.eight | 75.1 | 70.9–79.three | |||
| Autonomy | 0.10 | ||||||
| Baseline | 68.three | 65.6–70.ix | 53.6 | 49.viii–57.four | |||
| half-dozen months | 68.4 | 65.seven–71.0 | 56.2 | 52.5–59.nine | |||
| eighteen months | 68.5 | 65.vii–71.2 | 59.ic | 54.ix–63.3 | |||
| Time Experience | 0.09 | ||||||
| Baseline | 47.8 | 44.4–51.2 | 41.nine | 37.two–46.half dozen | |||
| 6 months | 48.2 | 44.7–51.7 | 41.3 | 36.4–46.3 | |||
| 18 months | 48.six | 45.i–52.2 | 48.3 | 43.1–53.6 | |||
| Management | 0.40 | ||||||
| Baseline | 72.0 | 69.1–74.viii | 63.four | 59.5–67.four | |||
| six months | 68.2 c | 65.0–71.four | 62.9 | 58.iv–67.3 | |||
| 18 months | 70.1 | 66.7–73.4 | 64.ane | 59.0–69.2 | |||
| Reorganization | 0.54 | ||||||
| Baseline | sixty.0 | 56.iv–63.5 | 60.8 | 55.8–65.8 | |||
| 6 months | 57.9 | 54.1–61.7 | 61.half dozen | 56.three–67.0 | |||
| xviii months | 59.four | 55.2–63.5 | 64.0 | 57.8–70.three |
3.3. Psychosocial Work Environment
There was a significant group over time upshot in the dimension supportive working conditions in the WEMS questionnaire (p < 0.01) (Tabular array ii), with a subtract in rating inside the AFO group at 6 months (p < 0.001), while no changes over time were seen over fourth dimension in the jail cell office group. At that place was no group over time outcome regarding other WEMS dimensions. However, within group analyses showed a significant decrease in rating of the dimensions internal work experience (6 months; p < 0.001, 18 months; p < 0.01) and management (half-dozen months; p < 0.05) in the AFO grouping. In the cell function group, in that location was a significant increase in rating of autonomy at xviii months (p < 0.05).
three.four. Physical Work Environment
As displayed in Tabular array iii there were statistically significant group over time effects regarding the physical aspects of the work environment, i.e., noise disturbance (p < 0.001), lack of privacy (p < 0.001), sit comfort (p < 0.01) and work posture (p = 0.001). At baseline, the group that moved to the AFO rated less disturbance from noise (OR = 0.22), and lack of privacy (OR = 0.40) as well every bit better sit comfort (OR = 4.04) and meliorate work posture (OR = iv.61), compared to the cell office grouping. After relocation, ratings regarding noise disturbance and lack of privacy deteriorated in the AFO group at both follow-ups. In add-on, the odds of reporting a good sit down comfort and piece of work posture declined in the AFO grouping later on relocation. In the cell office on the other paw, ratings in noise disturbance and lack of privacy were lower afterwards relocation. In dissimilarity to the AFO group, the odds of reporting good sit down condolement and piece of work posture increased in the cell part group after relocation.
Table 3
Comparisons of physical working atmospheric condition and health in the activeness-based flex office (AFO) and cell office, expressed every bit estimated means (EM) and odds ratios (OR). Deviation between the groups over time is expressed as group x time result. For estimated means (EM), pairwise comparisons within groups are presented. Bold indicates statistically significant within group differences.
| AFO | Cell Office | p-Value for Group x Time | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EM | OR | 95% CI | EM | OR | 95% CI | ||
| Disturbance from Dissonance (Voices etc.) | <0.001 | ||||||
| Baseline | 0.22 | 0.12–0.38 | 1 c | ||||
| vi months | 0.79 | 0.48–1.29 | 0.73 | 0.44–i.22 | |||
| eighteen months | 1.05 | 0.63–i.76 | 0.62 | 0.33–1.18 | |||
| Lack of Privacy | <0.001 | ||||||
| Baseline | 0.xl | 0.21–0.75 | 1 c | ||||
| six months | 2.85 | 1.66–four.87 | 0.47 | 0.23–0.998 | |||
| 18 months | three.10 | 1.77–5.37 | 0.61 | 0.30–i.24 | |||
| Sit down Comfort | 0.005 | ||||||
| Baseline | iv.04 | 2.04–7.98 | 1 c | ||||
| 6 months | one.28 | 0.72–ii.26 | 1.thirteen | 0.68–one.89 | |||
| 18 months | one.39 | 0.77–2.53 | one.thirty | 0.69–ii.46 | |||
| Work Posture | 0.001 | ||||||
| Baseline | 4.61 | 1.89–eleven.21 | 1 c | ||||
| half dozen months | 0.85 | 0.44–ane.62 | i.35 | 0.67–2.72 | |||
| 18 months | 0.92 | 0.46–1.81 | i.59 | 0.64–3.95 | |||
| Self-Rated Full general Health | 0.78 | ||||||
| Baseline | 2.15 | i.04–four.43 | i c | ||||
| 6 months | 1.83 | 0.91–3.72 | 1.02 | 0.59–1.78 | |||
| 18 months | ane.49 | 0.73–3.03 | 0.62 | 0.33–1.xx | |||
| Salutogenic Health Indicator Scale (SHIS) | 0.26 | ||||||
| Baseline | 69.7 | 67.one–72.four | 65.0 | 61.2–68.8 | |||
| 6 months | 67.1 | 64.2–lxx.0 | 59.0 b | 55.0–63.one | |||
| 18 months | 67.seven | 64.7–seventy.6 | 58.9 b | 54.4–63.iii | |||
| Cognitive Stress (COPSOQ) | 0.47 | ||||||
| Baseline | 2.03 | 1.92–2.14 | two.27 | 2.11–2.42 | |||
| six months | 2.23 a | ii.11–two.35 | ii.49 b | two.32–2.66 | |||
| 18 months | 2.14 | 2.01–two.27 | 2.52 b | two.32–2.71 | |||
| Neck/Shoulder Hurting | 0.39 | ||||||
| Baseline | 0.47 | 0.28–0.81 | i c | ||||
| 6 months | 0.74 | 0.44–1.23 | 1.17 | 0.82–1.68 | |||
| 18 months | 0.69 | 0.40–1.xviii | 0.99 | 0.62–1.62 | |||
| Back Pain | 0.73 | ||||||
| Baseline | 0.55 | 0.31–0.97 | i c | ||||
| six months | 0.69 | 0.39–ane.21 | 0.99 | 0.63–one.57 | |||
| eighteen months | 0.65 | 0.36–1.18 | 1.05 | 0.64–1.72 |
iii.5. Health
No meaning group over time effects were found regarding cocky-rated general wellness, salutogenic health indicators (SHIS), cerebral stress (COPSOQ) or discomfort in the neck, shoulders or back (Table 3). Cognitive stress significantly increased in the AFO group at the 6-month follow-up (p < 0.01), simply not at eighteen months. Employees in the prison cell office grouping rated a meaning decrease in the SHIS-score and a higher degree of cognitive stress at both follow ups (p < 0.05).
three.6. Productivity in the AFO
When analyzing data from the employees in the AFO, there was a significant interaction effect in hours per week spent on individual piece of work tasks requiring concentration and productivity (p < 0.001), indicating that productivity decreased with increased time spent on these tasks (Table 4, Figure two). A meaning interaction effect was also found for productivity in relation to the amount of teamwork performed (p = 0.011). More fourth dimension spent working in teams was associated with a higher estimated productivity after relocation (Figure 2). The importance of spontaneous meetings also interacted with productivity (p < 0.001). A low degree of importance was associated with a lower productivity (Figure 2). A significant interaction effect was seen between productivity and being a manager or non (p < 0.001). In the non-manager grouping productivity decreased afterward relocation compared to the manager group (Figure 2). Further analyses of piece of work tasks showed that managers, compared to non-managers, worked from dwelling more than (p < 0.001), had more meetings outside of the function (p = 0.04), worked more in groups (p < 0.001), had a smaller proportion of individual tasks requiring concentration (p = 0.001) and rated spontaneous meetings to be more important for their work (p < 0.001). No pregnant interaction effects were seen for productivity in relation to historic period, gender, time spent on performing routine tasks, computer work or working over the telephone.
Perceived productivity (range 0–5, a high value indicating a high productivity) in the AFO in relation to time spent on individual work tasks requiring concentration (h/week), fourth dimension spent working in teams (h/week), importance of spontaneous meetings (scale i–5, i = "I concur", v = "I disagree". A low value indicating a loftier importance of spontaneous meetings), and amidst managers/non-managers. Presented as estimated ways (EM). Pregnant fourth dimension interaction effects were found for number of hours spent on individual work tasks requiring concentration (p < 0.001), number of hours working in teams (p = 0.011), importance of spontaneous meetings (p < 0.001) and amid managers/non-managers (p < 0.001).
Table 4
Perceived productivity in the activity-based flex office (AFO) in relation to age, gender and work characteristics presented as estimated means (EM). Modify in productivity over time is presented as time interaction effect.
| Number, n (%) | Baseline (EM) | 6 Months (EM) | 18 Months (EM) | p-Value for Time Interaction Consequence | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Historic period (y) | 0.935 | ||||
| xviii–39 | 53 (27.9) | four.07 | 3.63 | 3.56 | |
| 40–49 | 50 (26.3 | iii.99 | three.58 | 3.55 | |
| 50–59 | 50 (26.3) | 3.eighty | 3.33 | 3.30 | |
| 60– | 37 (nineteen.5) | 4.00 | iii.43 | 3.46 | |
| Gender | 0.778 | ||||
| Female | 129 (67.9) | 3.95 | 3.50 | 3.48 | |
| Male | 61 (32.1) | four.00 | 3.49 | 3.45 | |
| Individual Piece of work Tasks Requiring Concentration (h/week) | <0.001 | ||||
| 0–five | 43 (22.6) | 3.89 | 3.82 | iii.79 | |
| 6–10 | 42 (22.1) | 3.93 | 3.53 | 3.47 | |
| 11–15 | 22 (eleven.vi) | 3.89 | 3.15 | 3.18 | |
| 16– | 36 (19.0) | iv.07 | 3.11 | 3.xi | |
| Teamwork, >3 Persons (h/week) | 0.011 | ||||
| 0–5 | 101 (53.2) | 3.93 | 3.38 | 3.39 | |
| 6– | 29 (fifteen.three) | 3.87 | three.77 | 3.74 | |
| "Spontaneous Meetings Are Important for My Work" | <0.001 | ||||
| 1 "I agree" | 35 (18.4) | 3.99 | 3.84 | 3.85 | |
| two | 43 (22.6) | 3.79 | 3.52 | 3.55 | |
| three | 41 (21.6) | 4.07 | 3.35 | iii.30 | |
| iv + v = "I disagree" | 31 (16.3) | iv.00 | 3.02 | ii.96 | |
| Manager | <0.001 | ||||
| Yes | 51 (26.8) | three.85 | 3.73 | 3.75 | |
| No | 139 (73.2) | 4.01 | 3.42 | 3.37 | |
| Reckoner Related Tasks (h/day) | 0.128 | ||||
| 0–iv | 44 (23.1) | 3.97 | three.71 | iii.62 | |
| 4–6 | 69 (36.three) | iii.89 | 3.43 | 3.45 | |
| 6–viii | 77 (40.5) | 4.03 | 3.44 | 3.40 | |
| Individual Piece of work, Routine Tasks (h/week) | 0.197 | ||||
| 0–v | 65 (34.2) | three.89 | 3.40 | 3.31 | |
| 6–10 | 41 (21.vi) | iii.96 | three.47 | 3.47 | |
| eleven– | 33 (17.four) | 3.95 | 3.62 | 3.68 | |
| Hours of Work Involving Phone Calls (h/calendar week) | 0.534 | ||||
| 0–five | 121 (63.7) | 3.93 | three.47 | 3.45 | |
| 6– | 16 (8.4) | 3.87 | three.19 | three.eighteen |
iv. Discussion
The primary aim of this report was to investigate the event on employees' perceived productivity, satisfaction with the office design, piece of work environment and health when relocating from cell offices to an AFO in comparison to a group in the same organization relocating from cell offices to other prison cell offices.
We hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in development of productivity or satisfaction betwixt the two part groups after relocation. Our results did non support this as employees in the AFO grouping reported a decrease in perceived productivity while the prison cell function group'south productivity rating remained unchanged. This finding is in contrast to earlier studies that have shown improved productivity in action based and flexible office environments [6,18,29,30].
Our report is unique, as we could analyze the impact of work tasks on productivity in an AFO by using longitudinal data. The results supported our other hypotheses since employees with individual concentration intensive work tasks experienced a lower productivity in the AFO. We too found that employees with work tasks requiring a lot of collaboration and advice experienced an unchanged high level of productivity in the AFO. Productivity was rated higher among employees in the AFO who considered spontaneous meetings to be of high importance, as well as for those who spent more fourth dimension working in teams. These results are in line with previous research were ABW has been shown to be unfavorable for concentration and privacy but positively associated with areas of communication and collaboration [ix]. Furthermore, we found that employees who worked in the AFO but had no managerial position experienced a lower productivity after relocation compared to managers. This can perhaps be explained by managers performing more mobile and communicative tasks. The fit between specific work patterns (i.e., interactivity) and the office environment has shown to exist of great importance in relation to employee operation [31]. Information technology appears as though flexible and interactive work tasks are appropriate for an AFO environment whereas individual tasks demanding a high degree of concentration are less suitable. Furthermore, the facilitation and access to quiet areas and closed work settings for concentration intensive work seems to exist of bully importance every bit has been highlighted in previous studies [xvi,32]. Another factor that has been associated with possible touch on on productivity in AFOs, is the time that employees spend searching for a workstation. Haapakangas et al. [xv] institute that increased time spent on finding a suitable workspace was associated with lower productivity. It is not unlikely that the high employee density that occurred during the course of our study affected the admission to available workstations in the AFO negatively, which in turn could have dumb productivity ratings. We plant no differences in perceived productivity in the AFO in relation to historic period or gender. This could be due to piece of work tasks being homogeneous between older and younger employees as well equally between men and women.
Our results showed that satisfaction with the office design in the AFO group significantly decreased, whereas in the prison cell part group the satisfaction increased afterwards relocation. This is in contrast to previous research that showed higher satisfaction in activeness based and flexible office settings [13,thirty]. The need for privacy has been shown to play an of import role in employees' satisfaction with the piece of work surroundings inherent to AFOs [14]. In addition, satisfaction with possibilities of privacy and communication is strongly associated with positive productivity outcome in the AFOs [15]. The unfavorable influences from the physical work environment can exist a possible explanation of the decrease in both satisfaction and productivity in the AFO group. These results are consistent with previous enquiry showing that employees in AFOs reported decreased satisfaction with privacy compared to employees working in individual offices [11]. Moreover, the high occupancy rate at the time of the AOD Study may have had a negative impact on both dissonance levels and the opportunity to piece of work in privacy.
Another cistron that could influence the ratings of productivity and satisfaction is the blazon of office used prior to relocation. In our study the employees were mainly relocated from prison cell offices. However, in many of the previous studies, the employees worked in open up programme offices with individual workstations before relocating. Open up function landscapes have been associated with higher levels of cognitive stress and distraction [one] and negative furnishings on perceived work environs [4]. It is thus possible that a relocation from an open programme part to an AFO would increase satisfaction and perceived productivity, whereas relocating from prison cell offices to an AFO might event in a decrease in satisfaction and productivity.
Interestingly, our results showed a significant difference in experience of supportive working conditions between the groups over time. A decline in perceived back up was seen within the AFO grouping at the six-month follow-upward. The internal work experience as well equally perception of direction as well declined inside the AFO group after relocation. This is in line with the results of Morrison et al. [33], who plant that perceived supervisory support decreases in shared working environments, specially when employees have no assigned workstations. Managers need to adjust their leadership behavior and find new ways to secure the sharing of information and squad coherence in AFOs. In addition, an adaptation to new ways of advice seems necessary since initial agin effects on communication between managers and employees take been reported [34]. Thus, our results may reverberate the need for reorientation regarding arrangement, working methods and leadership strategies.
Experiences regarding the physical work surroundings besides differed between the groups in the present study. Employees in the AFO experienced a pass up in sit comfort and piece of work posture, indicating difficulties achieving optimal ergonomic atmospheric condition. Ergonomic adjustments in AFOs can be perceived as both difficult and time consuming [35], and adverse effects in employees' perceived productivity and wellness has been found when satisfaction and adjustability with piece of furniture condolement and workspace decreased [36]. With the basic thought of switching workplaces in the AFO, employees may have to adapt their workstation several times a day. It is therefore important to acknowledge the new ergonomic challenges of AFOs.
As we hypothesized, at that place were no significant differences in any of the health aspects betwixt the office groups over fourth dimension. Neither were there whatever differences between the groups regarding pain or discomfort in the neck, shoulder or dorsum. However, there seemed to be a downward trend in both groups, with the probability of reporting good health declining over time. This is in contrast to what Meijer et al. [18] found in a longitudinal study within the public sector, where general health increased significantly at follow-ups and upper extremity complaints decreased, for employees moving from cell offices to an AFO-similar environment. Notwithstanding, that study population comprised employees with mainly computer work, who possibly had more than homogenous piece of work tasks than the participants in our report. Moreover, Nijp et al. [19] found a decrease in general health in a group working in an ABW surround, but no change in a reference group.
The workload and crowding increased in general over time in our sample. This affected both office groups, possibly explaining the similar subtract in general health and increase in cognitive stress. Moreover, information technology is possible that adverse effects in general health and stress can be seen first later an fifty-fifty longer exposure time [i]. As there seems to be an increased risk of sickness absence in open up-plan workspaces compared to cell offices [37], information technology is unfortunate that we did not accept the possibility to follow sick-leave rates in our study. More than research is needed to investigate this further.
Strengths and Limitations
One of the strengths of this study is the controlled, longitudinal design and the long follow-up time which enabled us to report both brusque and long-term effects. The high response rate should ensure reliable and representative data of the employees involved in the office relocation. Furthermore, we used validated instruments with skilful internal consistency, to mensurate productivity, piece of work environment and health. Our study also presents novel results on how different work task characteristics affect productivity in an AFO.
The study also had some limitations. Since the employee allocation had been predetermined by the employer, randomization was not possible. Therefore, there were anticipated differences between the two function groups due to unlike assignments, e.m., in gender and managerial condition, which could accept had an affect on the results. However, through the use of a reference group, changes over time that are likely to accept affected both groups in similar ways could be disregarded. The fact that the whole written report was performed in the aforementioned large organization is probably an reward. Even so there were some of import differences between the two groups that we could not accept into account which probably reduces the generalizability of the results.
Some option bias cannot be excluded. It is non unlikely that employees who were dissatisfied with the office design or experienced negative wellness effects in relation to the office, quit their work and were therefore not included in the study.
5. Conclusions
This study shows that perceived productivity equally well as satisfaction with the office design decreased when employees within a municipality in Sweden relocated from cell offices to an AFO. Productivity was strongly related to work characteristics which highlights the importance of taking the type of assignments, piece of work tasks and organizational factors into account when planning for and implementing an AFO. Moreover, lack of privacy, besides equally noise pollution, increased after relocation. This seems to exist a general problem occurring in AFOs that needs to be addressed already in the planning stage by, due east.g., calculation plenty separate and tranquillity settings. Experiences of reduced sit comfort and dumb piece of work posture illuminate the potential ergonomic challenges in an AFO. We plant no alter in full general health, but enquiry regarding long-term wellness furnishings in AFOs is sparse and more than studies addressing this issue, as well as sickness absence data, is needed to draw well-grounded conclusions. Lastly, our report indicates that i size does not fit all, and that there is an urgent need for studies to increase the knowledge well-nigh how AFOs should be planned and adapted to suit employees with different kinds of work tasks.
Acknowledgments
Örnsköldsvik Municipality and the study participants are gratefully acknowledged for their committed and patient participation in, and contribution to, this study. We likewise thank AFA Insurance, Umeå University and Västerbotten Canton Quango who´s support fabricated this study possible.
Appendix A
Table A1
Organizational and architectural features in the activeness-based flex office (AFO) and cell office, respectively, (18-months follow upwardly) *.
| AFO | Cell office | |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Employees | ||
| Number of employees scheduled to | 270 | 195 |
| piece of work in the role | ||
| Number of employees at 18 months follow-upward | 315 | 199 |
| Organizational Conditions | ||
| Make clean desk policy a | Applied | Partly applied |
| Personal workstations b, % | 2% | 100% |
| Shared workstations | Yep | No |
| Policies for zones c | No awarding of zones | No application of zones |
| ICT solutions d | Wireless network | Wireless network (in meeting rooms) |
| Lap tops and USB docking stations | Stationary computers | |
| Skype for Business | Skype for business organisation, small extent. | |
| Air media (blue tooth) | Air media in meeting rooms | |
| Mobile phones | Stationary telephones | |
| VPN tunnel (CISCO) | ||
| General Architectural Features | ||
| Total expanse (10002) e | 4805 | 6091 |
| Surface area per person (m2) f | 15 | 31 |
| Number of floors | 2 (+1 reception floor) | 3 |
| Workstations | ||
| Total number of workstations, n | 160 | 202 |
| (Desk, chair, computer, screen) | ||
| Workstations in open program offices, n | 116 | 21 |
| Cell offices (one–2 persons), northward | 44 | 153 |
| Prison cell offices (3–5 persons), northward | - | 28 |
| Supportive Areas | ||
| Touch down seats, northward | 46 | - |
| Touch down tables, n | 13 | - |
| Group tables in open plan offices, n | 5 | - |
| - number of seats | xxx | - |
| Small coming together rooms (ii–6 p) | 11 | 14 |
| - number of seats | 52 | 60 |
| Large coming together rooms (7–25 p) | v | 7 |
| - number of seats | 56 | 72 |
| Lounges and Break out Spaces | ||
| Sofas and lounge chairs, number of seats | 160 | 47 |
| Break out spaces, number of seats | 193 | 86 |
| Number of standing top tables | 17 | 3 |
| Total Number of Seats in the Office | 697 | 467 |
Writer Contributions
Planned and designed the written report, M.N., V.W., A.P.-S., M.S.H., C.B.D. and 50.Southward.J. Carried out the data collection, V.W., M.Ö. and L.S.J. processed the data and M.Ö. performed the statistical analyses for all outcomes with the advice and assistance of D.O. and L.Southward.J. Wrote both outset and sequent drafts of the article, K.Ö and M.A. All authors participated in data estimation and provided input into the development of the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to submit for publication.
Funding
This research was funded by AFA Insurance, Umeå University and Västerbotten County Council.
Institutional Review Lath Statement
The written report was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by The Regional Ethical Commission in Sweden (No: 2104/226-31).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the written report.
Data Availability Statement
The full data are not publicly bachelor due to ethical/privacy reasons. Bearding data are bachelor for scientific purposes on asking from the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript or in the decision to publish the results.
Footnotes
Publisher's Notation: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
1. Seddigh A., Berntson E., Bodin Danielson C., Westerlund H. Concentration requirements change the effect of office type on indicators of wellness and performance. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014;38:167–174. doi: x.1016/j.jenvp.2014.01.009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
2. Duffy F. The New Role. 2d ed. Conran Octopus Limited; London, UK: 1997. [Google Scholar]
3. Lahtinen M., Ruohomäki V., Haapakangas A., Reijula G. Developmental needs of workplace design practices. Intell. Build. Int. 2015;7:198–214. doi: 10.1080/17508975.2014.1001315. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. Danielsson C.B. The Part. KTH; Stockholm, Sweden: 2009. [Google Scholar]
v. Kim J., de Love R. Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off inopen-plan offices. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013;36:eighteen–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.06.007. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Rolfö Fifty.V. Relocation to an activity-based flexible function—Design processes and outcomes. Appl. Ergon. 2018;73:141–150. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2018.05.017. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
vii. Appel-Meulenbroek R., Janssen I., Groenen P. An end-user'southward perspective on activity-based role concepts. J. Corp. Existent Estate. 2011;thirteen:122–135. doi: 10.1108/14630011111136830. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
viii. Van Der Voordt T.J. Costs and benefits of flexible workspaces: Work in progress in The netherlands. Facilities. 2004;22:240–246. doi: 10.1108/02632770410555959. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Engelen L., Chau J., Young S., Mackey M., Jeyapalan D., Bauman A. Is activity-based working impacting wellness, piece of work performance and perceptions? A systematic review. Build. Res. Inf. 2019;47:468–479. doi: x.1080/09613218.2018.1440958. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
x. Arundell Fifty., Sudholz B., Teychenne Grand., Salmon J., Hayward B., Healy Thou.N., Timperio A. The Impact of Action Based Working (ABW) on Workplace Activity, Eating Behaviours, Productivity, and Satisfaction. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Wellness. 2018;15:1005. doi: ten.3390/ijerph15051005. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. De Been I., Beijer M. The influence of role type on satisfaction and perceived productivity support. J. Facil. Manag. 2014;12:142–157. doi: 10.1108/JFM-02-2013-0011. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Haynes B., Suckley L., Nunnington N. Workplace productivity and office type: An evaluation of office occupier differences based on age and gender. J. Corp. Real Estate. 2017;19:111–138. doi: ten.1108/JCRE-xi-2016-0037. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
xiii. Rolfö L., Eklund J., Jahncke H. Perceptions of performance and satisfaction later relocation to an activity-based function. Ergonomics. 2018;61:644–657. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2017.1398844. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Hoendervanger J.G., Ernst A.F., Albers C.J., Mobach Thou.P., Yperen W. Van Individual differences in satisfaction with activeness-based work environments. PLoS ONE. 2018;thirteen:e0193878. doi: 10.1371/periodical.pone.0193878. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Haapakangas A., Hallman D.K., Mathiassen S.East., Jahncke H. Self-rated productivity and employee well-existence in activity-based offices: The role of environmental perceptions and workspace use. Build. Environ. 2018;145:115–124. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.09.017. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
sixteen. Hoendervanger J.G., Van Yperen N.W., Mobach M.P., Albers C.J. Perceived Fit and User Beliefs in Activity-Based Piece of work Environments. Environ. Behav. 2021 doi: 10.1177/0013916521995480. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. Danielsson B.C., Bodin L. Office type in relation to health, well-being, and job satisfaction among employees. Environ. Behav. 2008;forty:636–668. doi: 10.1177/0013916507307459. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
18. Meijer Due east.K., Frings-Dresen Chiliad.H.W., Sluiter J.Grand. Effects of function innovation on office workers' wellness and performance. Ergonomics. 2009;52:1027–1038. doi: 10.1080/00140130902842752. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Nijp H.H., Beckers D.Thousand.J., van de Voorde Thou., Geurts Due south.A.E., Kompier M.A.J. Effects of new means of working on work hours and piece of work location, health and job-related outcomes. Chronobiol. Int. 2016;33:604–618. doi: x.3109/07420528.2016.1167731. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
20. van der Voordt T.J.K., Van Der Klooster Westward. Post-Occupancy Evaluation of a New Role Concept in an Educational Setting; Proceedings of the CIB W070 Briefing in Facilities Management, Heriot Watt University; Edinburgh, Scotland. 16–eighteen June 2008. [Google Scholar]
21. Brennan A., Chugh J.S., Kline T. Traditional versus open role design: A longitudinal field study. Environ. Behav. 2002;34:279–299. doi: 10.1177/0013916502034003001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. Peters M., Passchier J. Translating instruments for cantankerous-cultural studies in headache research. Headache. 2006;46:82–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2006.00298.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Nilsson P., Bringsén Å., Ingemar A.H., Eilertsson K. Evolution and quality analysis of the Work Experience Measurement Scale (WEMS) Work. 2010;35:49–62. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2010-0967. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. Vischer J. Workplace Strategies: Environment as a Tool for Work. Champman & Hall; New York, NY, USA: 1996. [Google Scholar]
25. Sullivan M., Karlsson J., Ware J.E. The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey-I. Evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and construct validity beyond full general populations in Sweden. Soc. Sci. Med. 1995;41:1349–1358. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00125-Q. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Bringsén Å., Andersson H.I., Ejlertsson G. Development and quality analysis of the Salutogenic Health Indicator Scale (SHIS) Scand. J. Public Health. 2009;37:13–19. doi: 10.1177/1403494808098919. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Kristensen T.S., Hannerz H., Høgh A., Borg V. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire—a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial piece of work environment. Scand. J. Public Health. 2005;31:438–449. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.948. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Wahlström J., Hagberg M., Toomingas A., Wigaeus Tornqvist Eastward. Perceived muscular tension, job strain, concrete exposure, and associations with neck hurting amid VDU users; a prospective accomplice written report. Occup. Environ. Med. 2004;61:523–528. doi: ten.1136/oem.2003.009563. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Candido C., Thomas L., Haddad Due south., Zhang F., Mackey Yard., Ye West. Designing activity-based workspaces: Satisfaction, productivity and concrete activity. Build. Res. Inf. 2019;47:275–289. doi: ten.1080/09613218.2018.1476372. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
thirty. Candido C., Zhang J., Kim J., De Dear R., Thomas L., Strapasson P., Camila J. Affect of workspace layout on occupant satisfaction, perceived health and productivity; Proceedings of the 9th Windsor Conference: Making Comfort Relevant; Windsor, UK. 7–x April 2016; pp. 1214–1225. [Google Scholar]
31. Soriano A., Kozusznik M.Due west., Peiró J.Grand., Mateo C. The Role of Employees' Work Patterns and Office Blazon Fit (and Misfit) in the Relationships Between Employee Well-Being and Performance. Environ. Behav. 2020;52:111–138. doi: 10.1177/0013916518794260. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
32. Jahncke H., Hallman D.M. Objective measures of cognitive performance in activeness based workplaces and traditional office types. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020;72:101503. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101503. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Morrison R.L., Macky Grand.A. The demands and resource arising from shared office spaces. Appl. Ergon. 2017;lx:103–115. doi: x.1016/j.apergo.2016.eleven.007. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Wohlers C., Hertel Thousand. Longitudinal effects of action-based flexible part blueprint on teamwork. Front. Psychol. 2018;9:2016. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02016. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. Wahlström V., Fjellman-Wiklund A., Harder 1000., Järvholm L.South., Eskilsson T. Implementing a physical action promoting program in a flex-role: A procedure evaluation with a mixed methods design. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;17:23. doi: ten.3390/ijerph17010023. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36. Kim J., Candido C., Thomas L., de Dear R. Desk-bound ownership in the workplace: The issue of non-territorial working on employee workplace satisfaction, perceived productivity and health. Build. Environ. 2016;103:203–214. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.04.015. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Nielsen M.B., Knardahl S. The impact of office design on medically certified sickness absenteeism. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health. 2020;46:330–334. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3859. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Wahlström 5., Bergman F., Öhberg F., Eskilsson T., Olsson T., Järvholm L.S. Furnishings of a multicomponent concrete activity promoting plan on sedentary behavior, concrete action and torso measures: A longitudinal study in different function types. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health. 2019:493–504. doi: ten.5271/sjweh.3808. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Manufactures from International Periodical of Ecology Research and Public Health are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8304243/
0 Response to "Is Activity-based Working Impacting Health Work Performance and Perceptions? A Systematic Review"
Post a Comment