Skip to main content

Table 5 Difference in change between the pedometer (STEP) and comparison group (COMP) in the weekly minutes of walking and in the daily minutes of sitting at 2, 6 and 12-month follow-up and in subjective work ability at 12-month follow-up

From: Promoting walking among office employees ― evaluation of a randomized controlled intervention with pedometers and e-mail messages

  Logistic regressiona Linear modelb
  Odds ratio 95% confidence interval Geometric mean ratio 95% confidence interval
  2 months 6 months 12 months 2 months 6 months 12 months
Walking at work 0.73 0.06 to 8.89 4.20 0.31 to 57 2.39 0.15 to 37.3 1.11 0.92 to 1.35 1.09 0.89 to 1.32 1.13 0.92 to 1.38
Walking for transportation 2.12 0.94 to 4.81 1.28 0.53 to 3.12 1.57 0.68 to 3.61 0.84 0.64 to 1.11 1.08 0.82 to 1.44 1.03 0.77 to 1.39
Walking stairs 1.44 0.64 to 3.25 0.97 0.40 to 2.34 2.24 0.94 to 5.31 1.26 0.98 to 1.61 1.27 0.98 to 1.64 1.18 0.91 to 1.53
Walking for leisure 1.18 0.58 to 2.40 1.86 0.94 to 3.69 2.07 0.99 to 4.34 1.22 0.96 to 1.54 1.09 0.85 to 1.39 1.21 0.94 to 1.55
Total walking · · · 1.19 0.95 to 1.49 1.19 0.95 to 1.51 1.25 0.98 to 1.59
     Mean differencec 95% confidence interval
     2 months 6 months 12 months
Sitting during working day · · · −3 −45 to 40 −4 −46 to 38 −9 −56 to 37
Sitting during non-working day · · · 30 −9 to 70 1 −42 to 44 −9 −52 to 33
Subjective work ability(scale 0–10) ·· ·· ·· ·· ·· 0.3 −0.1 to 0.6
  1. a The probability (odds ratio) of walking from baseline to 2, 6 and 12-month follow-up. The data were coded dichotomously to zeros (=0, no walking) and nonzeros (=1, walking).
  2. b Logarithm-transformed nonzero responses. Worksite included as a random effect (intercept) and gender, taking care of minors (yes/no), age (continuous) and body mass index at baseline (continuous) as covariates.
  3. c Untransformed values.
  4. Category not applicable.
  5. Data not available.