Background
Physical activity and burnout/vigor at work
PA, expressive activities and burnout/vigor at work
-
Hypothesis 1a: the PA intervention is effective in reducing burnout and/or improving vigor at work compared to the waiting list control condition.
-
Hypothesis 1b: the Theatre condition intervention is effective in reducing burnout and/or improving vigor at work
-
Hypothesis 2: PA is more effective than Theatre condition in reducing burnout and/or improving vigor at work
Quality of PA experience: Role of the instructor’s need-supportive style
-
Hypothesis 3: the positive effect of PA on burnout and/or vigor will be more pronounced when instructors use a need-supportive style rather than a “traditional” motivational style.
Physical Activity and Secondary Outcomes
-
Hypothesis 4: the PA intervention is effective in improving job satisfaction (H4a), autonomous work motivation (H4b), work ability (H4c), and work performance (H4d).
Psychological and Physiological Mechanisms of the PA – Burnout/Vigor Relationship
-
Hypothesis 5: The effects of the PA intervention on burnout and/or vigor at work are mediated by higher psychological detachment from work (H5a), relaxation (H5b), mastery (H5c), control (H5d), relatedness (H5e), positive affects (H5f) experiences, and cardiorespiratory fitness (H5g).
Weekly trajectories of employee burnout, vigor, and psychological recovery mechanisms
-
Hypothesis 6a: Participants in the PA and Theatre conditions report a decrease in feelings of burnout and/or an increase in vigor each week over the intervention period compared to participants in the control condition.
-
Hypothesis 6b: Participants in the PA-need-supportive style conditions report a decrease in feeling of burnout and/or an increase in vigor each week over the intervention period compared to participants in the PA-traditional style and Theatre conditions.
-
Hypothesis 6c: Participants in intervention groups who experience greater feelings of psychological detachment from work, relaxation, mastery, control, relatedness, or positive affects experiences during the sessions, show a larger improvement in their weekly burnout and/or vigor trajectories compared to participants who experience lower feelings during these sessions.
Moderator effects of compliance
-
Hypothesis 7: The positive effect of PA on burnout and/or vigor will be more pronounced among participants with higher compliance to activity sessions compared to participants with lower compliance.
Control variables
Methods
Study design
Ethical issues
Recruitment process
Sample size
Randomization and blinding
Conditions
PA traditional style condition
PA need-supportive style condition
Theatre condition
Waiting list control condition
Measures
Variables | Pre-intervention (T0) | During intervention (T6 or T8) | Weekly (T1-T10) | Post-intervention (T11) | Follow-up at 3 and 6 months (T12–13) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Primary outcomes | − Burnout | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓a | |
− Vigor | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓a | ||
Secondary outcomes | − Job satisfaction | ✓ | ✓ | ✓a | ||
− Work motivation | ✓ | ✓ | ✓a | |||
− Work performance | ✓ | ✓ | ✓a | |||
− Work ability | ✓ | ✓ | ✓a | |||
Psychological and physiological mediators | − Off-job recovery activities | ✓ | ✓ | |||
− Psychological detachment | ✓ | ✓a | ✓ | |||
− Relaxation | ✓ | ✓a | ✓ | |||
− Control | ✓ | ✓a | ✓ | |||
− Mastery | ✓ | ✓a | ✓ | |||
− Relatedness | ✓ | ✓a | ✓ | |||
− Positive Affects | ✓a | |||||
− Cardiorespiratory Fitness | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
Moderator variable | − Compliance to activity sessions | ✓a | ||||
Control variables | − Job characteristics | ✓ | ✓(T6) | ✓b | ✓ | |
− Needs satisfaction at work | ✓ | ✓(T6) | ✓ | ✓ | ||
− Workload at work | ✓ | |||||
Manipulation check | − Instructors observed motivating style | ✓(T8) | ||||
− participants’ perception of the instructor’s motivating style | ✓(T8) | |||||
− Objective effort during sessions | ✓(T6) | |||||
− Perceived effort during sessions | ✓a |