Effects of a Participative Workplace Intervention on Work Strategies and Expectations of Availability Among Office-Based Employees With Flexible Work Arrangements

Figures & data

Figure 1. Intervention procedure (step one and step two), and the three measurements (baseline, follow-up one and follow-up two), which were completed in both the intervention and control group.

Figure 2. Flowchart describing the procedure in step one (education) and step two (workshops) of the intervention.

Table 1. Background characteristics and outcome variables for the intervention and control group at baseline (i.e., ICT use outside regular working hours, productivity, expectations of availability, and clarity of expectations about availability).

	Intervention group				Control group
	Scale	n	%	Mean (SD)	n	%	Mean (SD)
Gender	Women	33	34.0		32	46.4
	Men	63	64.9		37	53.6
	Do not want to categorize	1	1.0
Age	Years	96		48.7 (10.5)	68		48.9 (9.2)
Marital status	Single	15	15.5		10	14.3
	Married/partnership	82	84.5		60	85.7
Children living at home	0 children	47	50.0		25	36.2
	One or more	47	50.0		44	63.8
Educational level	Primary school	2	2.1
	High school	13	13.4		15	21.4
	Vocational school	9	9.3
	University	73	75.3		55	78.6
Employment rate	100%	89	91.8		66	95.7
	Less than 100%	8	8.2		3	4.3
Years of employment	Years	96		13.1 (11.9)	70		13.3 (10.5)
Work arrangement	Flextime	14	14.6		6	8.6
	Non-regulated working hours	82	85.4		63	90.0
	Other				1	1.4
ICT use outside regular working hours	0–4	97		1.9 (1.2)	70		2.3 (1.2)
Perceived productivity	0–10	96		7.5 (1.6)	70		7.8 (1.6)
Expectations of availability	0–4	97		0.7 (0.7)	70		0.9 (0.8)
Clarity of expectations about availability	0–4	94		1.9 (1.1)	68		2.1 (1.1)

Figure 3. Flowchart of participants through the study and numbers analyzed after application of inclusion criteria (respond to baseline questionnaire and at least one follow-up).

Table 2. Employees’ experience of the intervention, measured about 2 months after the education (follow-up one) and about 4 months after the workshop (follow-up two).

	Intervention group
	Scale	n	%
Participated in the education	Yes	97	100
	No	0	0
Participated in the workshop	Yes	80	84.2
	No	15	15.8
Experience of the education	0–4
You were engaged	To a minor extent (0–1)	1	1.1
	To some extent (2)	5	5.4
	To a high extent (3–4)	87	93.5
It was relevant to your work	To a minor extent (0–1)	4	4.3
	To some extent (2)	13	13.8
	To a high extent (3–4)	77	82.0
You feel satisfied with the education	To a minor extent (0–1)	8	8.5
	To some extent (2)	14	14.9
	To a high extent (3–4)	72	76.6
Experience of the workshop	0–4
You were engaged	To a minor extent (0–1)	2	2.5
	To some extent (2)	6	7.5
	To a high extent (3–4)	72	90.1
It was relevant to your work	To a minor extent (0–1)	12	15.1
	To some extent (2)	22	27.5
	To a high extent (3–4)	46	57.5
You feel satisfied with the workshop	To a minor extent (0–1)	16	20.3
	To some extent (2)	19	24.1
	To a high extent (3–4)	44	55.7
You still work with the action plan	To a minor extent (0–1)	31	38.8
	To some extent (2)	24	30.0
	To a high extent (3–4)	25	31.3

Table 3. Descriptive statistics describing the change in work strategies after the education (follow-up one) and workshop (follow-up two), presented as the mean change (SD) for the intervention and control group.

	Intervention group			Control group
Variables	Scale	n	Mean (SD)	n	Mean (SD)
During the last six months, have you changed your work strategies regarding…	0–4
How to handle emails
Follow-up one		94	2.7 (1.3)	66	0.8 (1.1)
Follow-up two		96	2.4 (1.2)	56	0.7 (1.1)
How to structure work tasks
Follow-up one		93	2.6 (1.6)	66	1.2 (1.1)
Follow-up two		95	2.3 (1.2)	55	1.0 (1.2)
How to prioritize work tasks
Follow-up one		94	2.6 (1.2)	66	1.1 (1.1)
Follow-up two		97	2.3 (1.1)	56	1.1 (1.2)
How to minimize work interruptions
Follow-up one		91	2.1 (1.2)	65	0.9 (1.1)
Follow-up two		95	1.8 (1.1)	54	0.8 (1.1)

Note. The scale ranged from 0 (no change at all) to 4 (changed to a large extent).

Table 4. ICT use outside regular working hours, perceived productivity, expectations of availability, and clarity of expectations about availability at baseline, follow-up one and follow-up two, presented as mean (SD) for the intervention and control groups.

		Intervention group		Control group
Variables	Scale	n	Mean (SD)	n	Mean (SD)
ICT use outside regular working hours	0–4
Baseline		97	1.9 (1.2)	70	2.3 (1.2)
Follow-up one		94	1.7 (1.1)	66	2.2 (1.1)
Follow-up two		96	1.7 (1.2)	56	2.1 (1.0)
Perceived productivity	0–10
Baseline		96	7.5 (1.6)	70	7.8 (1.6)
Follow-up one		93	7.5 (1.6)	66	7.5 (1.6)
Follow-up two		95	7.4 (1.8)	56	7.5 (1.7)
Expectations of availability	0–4
Baseline		97	0.7 (0.7)	70	1.0 (0.8)
Follow-up one		94	0.7 (0.7)	66	0.8 (0.7)
Follow-up two		96	0.6 (0.7)	56	0.8 (0.8)
Clarity of expectations about availability	0–4
Baseline		94	1.9 (1.1)	68	2.1 (1.1)
Follow-up one		91	1.9 (1.3)	65	2.1 (1.0)
Follow-up two		90	1.8 (1.3)	56	2.1 (1.2)

Table 5. Effects of the intervention on changes in ICT use outside regular working hours, perceived productivity, expectations of availability, and clarity of expectations about availability at follow-up one and two.

			Model 1. Unadjusted				Model 2. Adjusted
				95% CI				95% CI
Variables	Scale	n	B	Lower	Upper	p	B	Lower	Upper	p
ICT use outside regular working hours^a	0–4
Follow-up one		I = 94, C = 66	−0.10	−0.39	0.18	0.49	−0.14	−0.43	0.16	0.36
Follow-up two		I = 96, C = 56	−0.09	−0.37	0.18	0.51	−0.11	−0.41	0.19	0.47
Perceived productivity^b	0–10
Follow-up one		I = 93, C = 66	0.31	−0.18	0.79	0.22	0.29	−0.22	0.79	0.27
Follow-up two		I = 95, C = 56	0.37	−0.20	0.93	0.20	0.36	−0.23	0.95	0.23
Expectations of availability^a	0–4
Follow-up one		I = 94, C = 66	0.10	−0.09	0.28	0.30	0.10	−0.09	0.29	0.31
Follow-up two		I = 96, C = 56	0.08	−0.09	0.26	0.34	0.12	−0.07	0.31	0.22
Clarity of expectations about availability^b	0–4
Follow-up one		I = 91, C = 65	0.10	−0.30	0.51	0.62	0.16	−0.24	0.56	0.43
Follow-up two		I = 90, C = 56	−0.08	−0.50	0.34	0.71	−0.12	−0.56	0.32	0.60

Effects (B) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values are presented for the interaction between group and time (group × time). Model 2 is adjusted for gender, marital status, educational level, and children living at home.

Note. I: intervention group and C: control group.

^a Negative value of effect favor the intervention group.

^b Positive values of effect favor the intervention group.