24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Qualitative Study of the Feasibility and Acceptability of Implementing ‘Sit-To-Stand’ Desks in Vocational Education and Training

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          While it has been shown that interrupting a person’s sedentary behaviour has the potential to improve cognitive, physical and mental health, a large part of time that students spend in school is sedentary. As research has shown that approximately 80% of vocational education and training (VET) students have an unhealthy sedentary lifestyle, implementing “sit-to-stand” (StS) desks could interrupt sedentary behaviour and promote healthier behaviour. Therefore, the acceptability and feasibility of using such desks in the VET setting should be investigated. Using semi-structured focus group interviews analysed via deductive content analysis, the opinions of 33 students for the following topics were assessed: (1) usage of the standing option of the desks (2) reasons for standing in class (3) experienced effect of standing behind the desk, and (4) fostering future StS desks usage. Although VET students are aware of the potential benefits of using StS desks, they need to be actively stimulated and motivated by teachers to use them. In addition, time is needed to get into the habit of standing. Thus, for successful implementation of StS desks in the VET setting, all stakeholders (i.e., students, teachers, schoolboards) should be actively involved in stimulating the healthy behaviour of VET students.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic

          The kappa statistic is frequently used to test interrater reliability. The importance of rater reliability lies in the fact that it represents the extent to which the data collected in the study are correct representations of the variables measured. Measurement of the extent to which data collectors (raters) assign the same score to the same variable is called interrater reliability. While there have been a variety of methods to measure interrater reliability, traditionally it was measured as percent agreement, calculated as the number of agreement scores divided by the total number of scores. In 1960, Jacob Cohen critiqued use of percent agreement due to its inability to account for chance agreement. He introduced the Cohen’s kappa, developed to account for the possibility that raters actually guess on at least some variables due to uncertainty. Like most correlation statistics, the kappa can range from −1 to +1. While the kappa is one of the most commonly used statistics to test interrater reliability, it has limitations. Judgments about what level of kappa should be acceptable for health research are questioned. Cohen’s suggested interpretation may be too lenient for health related studies because it implies that a score as low as 0.41 might be acceptable. Kappa and percent agreement are compared, and levels for both kappa and percent agreement that should be demanded in healthcare studies are suggested.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) – Terminology Consensus Project process and outcome

              Background The prominence of sedentary behavior research in health science has grown rapidly. With this growth there is increasing urgency for clear, common and accepted terminology and definitions. Such standardization is difficult to achieve, especially across multi-disciplinary researchers, practitioners, and industries. The Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) undertook a Terminology Consensus Project to address this need. Method First, a literature review was completed to identify key terms in sedentary behavior research. These key terms were then reviewed and modified by a Steering Committee formed by SBRN. Next, SBRN members were invited to contribute to this project and interested participants reviewed and provided feedback on the proposed list of terms and draft definitions through an online survey. Finally, a conceptual model and consensus definitions (including caveats and examples for all age groups and functional abilities) were finalized based on the feedback received from the 87 SBRN member participants who responded to the original invitation and survey. Results Consensus definitions for the terms physical inactivity, stationary behavior, sedentary behavior, standing, screen time, non-screen-based sedentary time, sitting, reclining, lying, sedentary behavior pattern, as well as how the terms bouts, breaks, and interruptions should be used in this context are provided. Conclusion It is hoped that the definitions resulting from this comprehensive, transparent, and broad-based participatory process will result in standardized terminology that is widely supported and adopted, thereby advancing future research, interventions, policies, and practices related to sedentary behaviors. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12966-017-0525-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                20 January 2021
                February 2021
                : 18
                : 3
                : 849
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Faculty of Educational Sciences, Open University of the Netherlands, 6419 AT Heerlen, The Netherlands; rianne.golsteijn@ 123456ou.nl (R.H.J.G.); sannesijben@ 123456hotmail.com (S.M.S.); renate.degroot@ 123456ou.nl (R.H.M.d.G.)
                [2 ]Mulier Institute, 3584 AA Utrecht, The Netherlands; a.singh@ 123456mulierinstituut.nl
                [3 ]Department of Nutrition and Movement Sciences, School of Health Professions Education (SHE) and School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), FHML, Maastricht University, 6229 GT Maastricht, The Netherlands; hans.savelberg@ 123456maastrichtuniversity.nl
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: mara.kirschner@ 123456ou.nl
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6311-078X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8493-9976
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8864-2109
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3734-2560
                Article
                ijerph-18-00849
                10.3390/ijerph18030849
                7908529
                33498208
                9004b901-84b1-4ddb-afa0-df18e1e45520
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 18 December 2020
                : 18 January 2021
                Categories
                Article

                Public health
                qualitative research,sit-to-stand desks,vocational education and training,sedentary behaviour,focus group interviews

                Comments

                Comment on this article