Search

Introduction: Little is known about workplace health promotion for bus drivers. Bus drivers are at-risk of chronic disease because they are exposed to the risk factor combination of poor nutrition, low levels of physical activity, high levels of sedentary time and are often overweight or obese. The purpose of this paper is to situate the quantitative baseline data collected from bus drivers within qualitative findings about the socio-cultural context of the workplace. Materials and methods: Baseline data about physical activity, dietary intake and sedentary hours was collected from 58 drivers employed by a large bus company in southeast Queensland. Ten drivers and seven key workplace informants participated in interviews and discussion groups about driver health behaviours, workplace structure, culture, and resources. Results: The quantitative results of our study reveal bus drivers have a cluster of poor health behaviours—limited physical activity, lower than recommended consumption of fruit and vegetables and high levels of sitting time during working-hours—which contribute to a high prevalence of overweight and obesity and a heightened risk of chronic disease. The qualitative findings suggest there are individual and structural barriers to improving drivers' modifiable health behaviours. Individual barriers include ingrained poor habits and more pressing life concerns, while structural barriers in the context of the workplace include time constraints, shift work, long days, a lack of work amenities and a general disconnect of drivers with their workplace. Conclusion: In this workplace, health promotion strategies for bus drivers should be prioritised as a means of improving drivers' health. To maximise uptake and effectiveness, these strategies should make use of existing workplace resources and consider the context of workplace health behaviour change. Further research is warranted in a broader sample of Australian bus companies to explore the context of workplace health behavior change so targeted strategies to improve bus drivers' health can be developed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Workplace health interventions incorporating qualitative and quantitative components (mixed methods) within a Participatory Action Research approach can increase understanding of contextual issues ensuring realistic interventions which influence health behaviour. Mixed methods research teams, however, face a variety of challenges at the methodological and expertise levels when designing actions and interventions. Addressing these challenges can improve the team's functionality and lead to higher quality health outcomes. In this paper we reflect on the data collection, implementation and data analysis phases of a mixed methods workplace health promotion project and discuss the challenges which arose within our multidisciplinary team.Methods: This project used mixed methods within a Participatory Action Research approach to address workers' sun safety behaviours in 14 outdoor workplaces in Queensland, Australia, and elucidate why certain measures succeeded (or failed) at the worker and management level. The project integrated qualitative methods such as policy analysis and interviews, with a range of quantitative methods - including worker surveys, ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure measurement, and implementation cost analyses.Results: The research team found the integration of qualitative and quantitative analyses within the Participatory Action Research process to be challenging and a cause of tensions. This had a negative impact on the data analysis process and reporting of results, and the complexity of qualitative analysis was not truly understood by the quantitative team. Once all researchers recognised qualitative and quantitative data would be equally beneficial to the Participatory Action Research process, methodological bias was overcome to a degree to which the team could work cooperatively.Conclusions: Mixed methods within a Participatory Action Research approach may allow a research team to discuss, reflect and learn from each other, resulting in broadened perspectives beyond the scope of any single research methodology. However, cohesive and supportive teams take constant work and adjustment under this approach, as knowledge and understanding is gained and shared. It is important researchers are cognisant of, and learn from, potential tensions within research teams due to juxtaposed philosophies, methodologies and experiences, if the team is to function efficiently and positive outcomes are to be achieved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]