Purpose: Workplace exercise programmes have been shown to increase employee participation in physical activities and improve health and fitness in the short-term. However, the limited breadth of employee engagement across organisations combined with declining exercise adherence within individual studies indicates a need for better-informed programmes. The purpose of this paper is to investigate relationships between employee moderate-vigorous physical activity (exercise) participation and their perceived barriers and facilitators to engagement in onsite exercise, to inform the design and implementation of future workplace exercise interventions. Design/methodology/approach: An online survey identified employee demographics, exercise (International Physical Activity Questionnaire), perceived barriers (Corporate Exercise Barriers Scale) and facilitators to exercise at an Australian university. Findings: Of the 252 full-time employees who responded, most reported meeting (43.7 per cent) or exceeding (42.9 per cent) exercise guidelines over the previous week. A lack of time or reduced motivation (p<0.001), exercise attitude (p<0.05), internal (p<0.01) and external (p<0.01) barriers towards workplace exercise participation were all associated with failure to attain government-recommended volumes of weekly exercise. Personal training (particularly for insufficiently active employees) and group exercise classes were identified as potential exercise facilitators. Walking, gym (fitness centre), swimming and cycling were identified as the preferred modes of exercise training. Practical implications: Employees not meeting recommended volumes of exercise might require additional support such as individualised gym and cycling programmes with personal supervision to overcome reported exercise barriers to improve exercise participation, health and fitness. Originality/value: This study identifies specific barriers and facilitators to workplace exercise participation perceived by university employees. These findings can be used to inform the design and implementation of workplace exercise programmes aiming to achieve wider workplace engagement and greater exercise adherence, particularly of less active employees.

Public health movement and social restrictions imposed by the Australian and New Zealand governments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the working environment and may have affected health behaviours, work ability, and job performance. The aim of this study was to determine the associations between health behaviours and work ability and performance during COVID-19 restrictions and if health behaviours were related to demographic or population factors. A cross-sectional survey was used to gather responses from 433 adult employees in Australia and New Zealand between June and August 2020. The survey requested demographic information and used the International Physical Activity Questionnaire, Work Ability Index, and the World Health Organisation’s Health and Work Performance Questionnaire. Multivariate regression models were used to explore relationships between the identified variables while controlling for several possible confounders. Being sufficiently physically active was associated with higher reported physical (aOR = 2.1; p = 0.001) and mental work abilities (aOR = 1.8; p = 0.007) and self-reported job performance (i.e., lower presenteeism) (median +7.42%; p = 0.03). Part-time employees were 56% less likely (p = 0.002) to report a good or very good mental work ability. Those with existing medical conditions were 14% less likely (p = 0.008) to be sufficiently active and 80% less likely (p = 0.002) to report rather good or very good physical work ability. Being sufficiently active was associated with higher physical and mental work abilities and better job performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Employers should support opportunities for regular physical activity and provide specific support to individuals with medical conditions or in part-time employment.

Exercise-based rehabilitation is the first line of treatment for people with musculoskeletal conditions. However, uptake and adherence are suboptimal, compromising the success of rehabilitation. To identify the barriers and facilitators that influence adherence to exercise-based rehabilitation in people with musculoskeletal conditions. Additionally, to identify the methods and instruments used to determine these barriers and facilitators. Systematic review METHODS: Five databases from inception to May 2024 using terms related to exercise, musculoskeletal conditions, methods, barriers and facilitators. Risk of bias was assessed using either the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane risk of bias tool. Using an inductive thematic approach, barriers and facilitators were grouped into intrapersonal, interpersonal and community factors. Methods/instruments were categorized into three groups, being questionnaires, interviews and focus-groups. Eighty-one of 8380 studies were included. The majority of studies were of good or fair quality (95%). The most frequently identified barriers were lack of time (53%), pain (45%) and health (40%). The most frequent facilitators were self-efficacy (42%), perceived health benefits (32%) and previous experiences (30%). The methods used were interviews (n = 53), questionnaires (n = 44) and focus groups (n = 10). Most barriers and facilitators to exercise were related to intrapersonal factors. Although there is a lack of consistency in instruments used, the reported barriers and facilitators were similar across studies. Clinicians and researchers should consider intrapersonal factors when promoting exercise-based rehabilitation programs. Applying a theoretical framework to investigate barriers and facilitators to exercise-based rehabilitation in people with musculoskeletal conditions might assist practitioners to prioritize their practice.

Hunter, JR, Gordon, BA, Bird, SR, and Benson, AC. Exercise supervision is important for cardiometabolic health improvements: a 16-week randomized controlled trial. J Strength Cond Res 34(3): 866–877, 2020—Exercise supervision enhances health and fitness improvements in clinical populations compared with unsupervised or home-based exercise, but effects of supervision type are unknown in healthy employees. Eighty-five Australian university employees (62 females; mean ± SD 43.2 ± 9.8 years) were randomized to personal (1:1; SUP, n = 28), nonpersonal (typical gym-based; NPS, n = 28) supervision or unsupervised control (CON, n = 29) exercise groups. Subjects received a 16-week individually tailored, moderate-to-high intensity aerobic and resistance exercise program completed at an onsite exercise facility (SUP and NPS) or without access to a specific exercise facility (CON). Repeated-measures ANOVA analyzed changes to cardiometabolic outcomes. Mean ± SD increases to V̇o ₂ peak were greater (p < 0.01) with SUP (+10.4 ± 11.1%) vs. CON (+3.8 ± 8.9%) but not different to NPS (+8.6 ± 8.2%). Compared to CON (+1.7 ± 7.7%), upper-body strength increases were greater with SUP (+12.8 ± 8.4%; p < 0.001) and NPS (+8.4 ± 7.3%; p < 0.05). Lower-body strength increases were greater with SUP (+26.3 ± 12.7%) vs. NPS (+15.0 ± 14.6%; p < 0.05) and CON (+4.1 ± 12.4%; p < 0.001), and NPS vs. CON (p < 0.01). Body fat reductions were greater with SUP (−2.2 ± 2.2%) vs. NPS (−0.6 ± 1.9%; p < 0.05) and CON (−0.7 ± 1.9%; p < 0.05). Access to an onsite exercise facility with personal or nonpersonal exercise supervision was important for improving several cardiometabolic outcomes, with greater improvements to lower-body strength and body composition from personal 1:1 exercise supervision.