Quasi-experimental study shows a mobile app increases movement breaks in software professionals, suggesting effective intervention strategies.
Background: Software professionals are exposed to long sitting hours. Studies have demonstrated that prolonged sitting is hazardous, but interventions to reduce prolonged workplace sitting in the Indian scenario are limited. Objectives: Among software professionals with desktop-based jobs in selected offices, this study aims to compare the changes in the number of movement breaks from continuous sitting with the use of a smartphone-based reminder application, along with health education, as compared to health education alone. The study also seeks to identify the barriers and facilitating factors for movement breaks in both groups. Material and Methods: A quasi-experimental, parallel group study was conducted among 46 participants in the intervention group and 48 participants in the control group, as per convenience. Subjects were interviewed using a pre-tested, structured questionnaire before and after intervention to assess the change in the number of breaks over time and the barriers and facilitating factors to it. Statistical analysis was done using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences V.23. The difference in frequency of movement breaks over time between the groups was calculated using repeated measures analysis of variance. Facilitating factors and barriers to taking movement breaks were summarized as proportions. Results: The mean (standard deviation) of frequency of movement breaks increased to 14 (+2) and 10 (+3) in the intervention and control group, respectively. Using the restroom and making phone calls were the most common facilitating factors, while workload and a comfortable air-conditioned office environment prevented them. Conclusion: The intervention has increased the frequency of movement breaks. A multi-pronged approach, a supportive environment, self-awareness, and self-motivation are necessary to bring about changes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chakrabarti et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: