Gardner Benjamin, Smith Lee, Mansfield Louise
Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, Addison House, Guy's Campus, London, SE1 1UL, UK.
The Cambridge Centre for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Department of Life Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.
BMC Public Health. 2017 Feb 2;17(1):47. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3974-0.
In June 2015, an expert consensus guidance statement was published recommending that office workers accumulate 2-4 h of standing and light activity daily and take regular breaks from prolonged sitting. This paper describes public responses to media coverage of the guidance, so as to understand public acceptability of the recommendations within the guidance, and perceptions of sitting and standing as health behaviours.
UK news media websites that had reported on the sedentary workplace guidance statement, and permitted viewers to post comments responding to the story, were identified. 493 public comments, posted in a one-month period to one of six eligible news media websites, were thematically analysed.
Three themes were extracted: (1) challenges to the credibility of the sedentary workplace guidance; (2) challenges to the credibility of public health; and (3) the guidance as a spur to knowledge exchange. Challenges were made to the novelty of the guidance, the credibility of its authors, the strength of its evidence base, and its applicability to UK workplaces. Public health was commonly mistrusted and viewed as a tool for controlling the public, to serve a paternalistic agenda set by a conspiracy of stakeholders with hidden non-health interests. Knowledge exchanges focused on correcting others' misinterpretations, raising awareness of historical or scientific context, debating current workplace health policies, and sharing experiences around sitting and standing.
The guidance provoked exchanges of health-promoting ideas among some, thus demonstrating the potential for sitting reduction messages to be translated into everyday contexts by lay champions. However, findings also demonstrated confusion, misunderstanding and misapprehension among some respondents about the health value of sitting and standing. Predominantly unfavourable, mistrusting responses reveal significant hostility towards efforts to displace workplace sitting with standing, and towards public health science more broadly. Concerns about the credibility and purpose of public health testify to the importance of public engagement in public health guidance development.
2015年6月，发布了一份专家共识指导声明，建议上班族每天累计站立和进行轻度活动2至4小时，并定期中断长时间坐着的状态。本文描述了公众对该指导声明媒体报道的反应，以了解公众对该指导声明中建议的接受程度，以及对坐着和站立作为健康行为的看法。
确定了报道过久坐工作场所指导声明且允许观众发表对该报道评论的英国新闻媒体网站。对在一个月内向六个符合条件的新闻媒体网站之一发布的493条公众评论进行了主题分析。
提取了三个主题：（1）对久坐工作场所指导可信度的质疑；（2）对公共卫生可信度的质疑；（3）该指导作为知识交流的促进因素。有人对该指导的新颖性、作者的可信度、证据基础的力度及其对英国工作场所的适用性提出了质疑。公共卫生普遍受到不信任，被视为控制公众的工具，服务于由具有隐藏非健康利益的利益相关者阴谋设定的家长式议程。知识交流集中在纠正他人的误解、提高对历史或科学背景的认识、辩论当前的工作场所健康政策以及分享关于坐着和站立的经验。
该指导引发了一些人之间促进健康理念的交流，从而表明减少久坐信息有可能被普通倡导者转化为日常情境。然而，研究结果也表明一些受访者对坐着和站立的健康价值存在困惑、误解和错误认知。主要是不利的、不信任的反应揭示了对用站立取代工作场所久坐的努力以及更广泛地对公共卫生科学的重大敌意。对公共卫生可信度和目的的担忧证明了公众参与公共卫生指导制定的重要性。
