3.8 Article

Factors associated with healthy and unhealthy workplace eating behaviours in individuals with overweight/obesity with and without binge eating disorder

Journal

OBESITY SCIENCE & PRACTICE
Volume 4, Issue 2, Pages 109-118

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/osp4.151

Keywords

Binge-eating disorder; obesity; overweight; workplace eating

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health career development grant [K23 DK092279]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective Most Americans spend an average of 8 hours per day in the workplace. Current understanding of eating behaviours in the workplace and their association with overweight, obesity and binge eating disorder (BED) is limited. Workplace eating behaviours and weight-related self-efficacy were examined in a sample of 98 individuals with overweight or obesity, with or without BED. Design Participants completed the Weight Efficacy Lifestyle Questionnaire, Work and Social Adjustment Scale, Worker's Perception of Environmental Factors, and a Workplace Questionnaire. Results Eating unplanned food occurred on average 2.43 times per week (SD = 3.37), and eating unplanned food even when meals were brought from home occurred on average 1.28 times per week (SD = 1.84). Individuals with BED purchased lunch even when they brought food from home significantly more frequently than did individuals without BED. Those with BED also reported significantly poorer work and social adjustment related to binge eating as compared with those without BED. The most significant barriers to healthy eating in the workplace were coworker influence, eating more food in general and more junk food in response to stress, eating unplanned food at work and time constraints. Conclusions These factors may be important to target in weight-loss treatment to increase individuals' weight loss success. As individuals with BED may be the most vulnerable to eating unplanned foods, clinicians may want to focus on this potential barrier in BED treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available