Office workers' perspectives on implementing active breaks supported by a digital intervention to alleviate spinal pain: a qualitative study.

Descriptive qualitative study using semi-structured interviews (mean 24 minutes) with 17 office workers (16 women, 1 man) recruited from five campuses of the University of Lleida. Participants were technical, administrative, or service staff who spent over 80% of their day seated and had experienced self-reported spinal discomfort for more than three months. Purposive sampling aimed for diversity in role and work profile. Interviews were conducted in person during working hours between June 2023 and February 2024. Two researchers independently coded the transcripts using Malterud's systematic text condensation framework and reached consensus on themes. This is the qualitative (first) phase of a registered mixed-methods project (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05571124) whose protocol has been published separately; the intervention itself has not yet been tested.

Three themes emerged. First, workers described their spinal pain as constant but manageable, linked to posture, prolonged sitting, and workload; most relied on visiting a physiotherapist when pain flared, and some felt the relief was short-lived. Second, workers saw short active breaks (mobility, stretching) as helpful for tension and focus, but identified heavy workloads, interruptions, and lack of managerial support as the main obstacles; they preferred 3–5 minute breaks every 2–3 hours with flexibility in timing rather than a fixed hourly schedule. Third, workers found a digital delivery channel (the university's virtual campus) practical, wanted short and visually clear content, and valued the option of a physiotherapist providing individualised guidance through video contact. No intervention was delivered or tested in this phase.

If you are involved in designing or delivering a workplace active-break programme for sedentary office workers, this study suggests workers want short, flexible breaks (3–5 min every 2–3 hours) rather than a rigid hourly schedule, and they specifically ask for a physiotherapist to be available for individualised guidance (e.g., a video call to show which exercises suit their back). They also flag that without managerial buy-in, breaks will not happen. This is a perceptions study from one university, so treat it as design input, not as evidence that a particular break protocol reduces pain.

Single institution (University of Lleida, five campuses); findings may not transfer to other workplace types or countries. Sixteen of seventeen participants were women, reflecting the gender mix of administrative roles there; the authors note this may limit transferability to male workers. Pain was self-reported and not clinically assessed or severity-graded, so the range of symptom intensity is unknown. Interviews lasted 20–30 minutes with a focused guide; the authors acknowledge this may have limited exploration of more nuanced experiences. This is the qualitative planning phase of a mixed-methods project; no intervention was delivered and no outcome was measured, so nothing here tests whether active breaks actually reduce spinal pain.

No funding from public, commercial, or not-for-profit sources. No competing interests declared. The principal author used ChatGPT for language editing and the authors state they take full responsibility for the content.

Do not read this as evidence that active breaks reduce spinal pain. No intervention was delivered or tested; the 17 workers were asked what they thought would help, and their preferences are not the same as a measured outcome. The study is also from a single university and is 16-to-1 female, so the findings may not apply to your patient population or workplace setting.