Full Text
<article class="scholarly-article">
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The global shift toward remote work, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has fundamentally altered the occupational landscape. By early 2024, a substantial proportion of employees in knowledge-intensive sectors continue to work from home at least part of the time (Krick et al., 2024). While remote work offers flexibility and autonomy, it also introduces new challenges for worker health, particularly in relation to sedentary behavior. Prolonged sitting is associated with increased risks of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, musculoskeletal disorders, and premature mortality (Kim & Choo, 2022). Workplace interventions to reduce sedentary time have been developed, but their effectiveness often depends on the broader organizational context (Rogers et al., 2024; Guitar et al., 2017).</p><p>Psychosocial safety climate (PSC) refers to shared perceptions of organizational policies, practices, and procedures for the protection of worker psychological health and safety (Yu et al., 2022; Bronkhorst, 2015). A strong PSC is characterized by management commitment, clear communication about psychosocial risks, and active participation in health promotion. High PSC has been linked to fewer workplace injuries, lower burnout, and improved safety behavior (Weaver et al., 2023; Tyas et al., 2024). However, little research has examined whether PSC influences health behaviors such as sedentary time, especially among remote workers who operate outside the traditional office environment.</p><p>Sedentary behavior in remote workers may be shaped by both individual and organizational factors. Without the social and structural cues of an office—such as walking to meetings, standing desks, or colleague reminders—remote workers may accumulate longer uninterrupted sitting periods (Krick et al., 2024). At the same time, a positive PSC could foster a culture that values worker well-being and encourages regular breaks, movement, and ergonomic practices (Kim & Choo, 2022; Chae et al., 2015). Understanding how PSC shapes sedentary behavior trajectories over time is essential for designing effective workplace health strategies in the evolving context of telework.</p><p>This study aims to fill this gap by investigating the longitudinal relationship between psychosocial safety climate and changes in daily sedentary time among remote workers. We hypothesized that higher baseline PSC would be associated with a slower increase (or greater decrease) in sedentary behavior over a 12-month period, after controlling for relevant confounders. Additionally, we explored potential moderators including gender, job demands, and workspace ergonomic quality.</p>
<h2>Literature Review</h2>
<h4>Psychosocial safety climate in the workplace</h4><p>Psychosocial safety climate as a construct emerged from the broader safety climate literature, which traditionally focused on physical safety. Yu et al. (2022) conceptualized PSC as a facet-specific climate that captures the extent to which an organization prioritizes psychological health and safety over productivity. A strong PSC has been shown to reduce workplace bullying (Wahyuningtias et al., 2021), enhance safety behavior (Bronkhorst, 2015), and buffer the negative effects of job demands on well-being (Weaver et al., 2023). In the context of developing countries, Tyas et al. (2024) found that PSC interventions in construction settings improved both psychosocial and physical safety outcomes, though evidence from remote work environments is sparse.</p><h4>Sedentary behavior in remote workers</h4><p>Remote work is associated with higher overall sedentary time compared to office-based work, due to reduced incidental movement and fewer mandatory breaks (Krick et al., 2024). Self-regulation challenges and blurred work-nonwork boundaries further contribute to prolonged sitting (Kim & Choo, 2022). Interventions using wearable technologies (Patel et al., 2021; Guitar et al., 2017) and resistance exercise breaks (Rogers et al., 2024) have shown promise in reducing sedentary time, but their adoption depends on organizational support. Tort and Burch (2020) concluded that workplace interventions to increase standing or walking may improve musculoskeletal symptoms, yet the sustainability of such changes remains questionable without a supportive psychosocial environment.</p><h4>Linking psychosocial safety climate to health behaviors</h4><p>The PRECEDE-PROCEED model, as applied by Kim and Choo (2022), positions organizational climate as a predisposing and reinforcing factor for health behaviors. In high-PSC organizations, employees may feel more empowered to take breaks and engage in physical activity without fear of negative performance evaluations. Conversely, low-PSC environments may prioritize productivity over health, discouraging movement (Ozaydin et al., 2021). Bronkhorst (2015) demonstrated that safety climate influences both physical and psychosocial safety behavior. However, these studies largely focused on physical safety or injury prevention, leaving a gap regarding sedentary behavior, which is a health risk often overlooked in occupational safety frameworks.</p><p>The present study extends existing theory by proposing that PSC acts as a contextual antecedent to sedentary behavior change in remote work. We draw on the socioecological model (Kim & Choo, 2022) to argue that organizational-level factors (i.e., PSC) interact with individual-level factors to shape health behavior trajectories over time. Our longitudinal design allows for the examination of within-person change, which is essential for understanding how the effects of PSC unfold.</p>
<h2>Methodology</h2>
<h4>Study design and participants</h4><p>This prospective longitudinal study followed a cohort of remote workers over a 12-month period, with three measurement waves: baseline (T0), 6 months (T1), and 12 months (T2). Participants were recruited through professional networks, social media, and employer partnerships in Sweden, Taiwan, and Ghana between January and March 2023. Eligibility criteria included: (a) full-time employment (≥30 hours/week), (b) remote work for at least 80% of working hours, (c) age 18–65, and (d) no self-reported diagnosed condition severely limiting mobility. A total of 1,024 individuals expressed interest; after screening and attrition, the final analytic sample comprised 847 participants (82.7% retention).</p><h4>Measures</h4><h4>Psychosocial safety climate</h4>
<p>PSC was measured at baseline using the 12-item Psychosocial Safety Climate scale (PSC-12), which assesses four dimensions: management commitment, management priority, organizational communication, and organizational participation. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The overall PSC score was computed as the mean of all items (α = 0.91 in this sample), consistent with prior research (Yu et al., 2022).</p><h4>Sedentary behavior</h4>
<p>Daily sedentary time (hours/day) was assessed at each wave using the Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire (OSPAQ) adapted for remote workers, supplemented by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) leisure-time sitting item. Participants reported typical weekday and weekend sedentary time; a weighted weekly average was calculated. Test-retest reliability in a pilot sample (n=50) was acceptable (ICC=0.78).</p><h4>Covariates</h4>
<p>Baseline covariates included age, gender, educational attainment (Gyekye & Salminen, 2009), job demands (Sanusi, 2020), job control, company size, industry sector, and the quality of the home workspace (presence of ergonomic chair, adjustable desk). At each wave, we also measured self-reported mental health (using the GHQ-12) and physical activity (MET-minutes/week) to account for potential confounding.</p><h4>Statistical analysis</h4><p>Multilevel growth curve models (MLMs) with random intercepts and random linear slopes for time were estimated using maximum likelihood. The level 1 model captured individual change in sedentary time over the three waves; level 2 captured between-person differences. The primary predictor was baseline PSC (centered). Interaction terms (PSC × time) tested whether PSC moderated the trajectory of sedentary behavior. Covariates were added sequentially. Sensitivity analyses examined quadratic time trends, restricted cubic splines, and subgroup effects (high vs. low PSC based on median split). All models were adjusted for clustering within organizations (n=142 organizations). Analyses were performed in R 4.3.2 using the lme4 package. Missing data (<5% at each wave) were handled using multiple imputation.</p>
<h2>Results</h2>
<h4>Descriptive statistics</h4><p>The analytic sample (N=847) had a mean age of 38.2 years (SD = 9.7); 54% identified as female. Average weekly remote work hours were 36.7 (SD = 7.2). At baseline, mean daily sedentary time was 9.4 hours (SD = 2.1), and mean PSC score was 3.38 (SD = 0.72) out of 5. Table 1 presents baseline characteristics by PSC tertile. Workers in the highest PSC tertile reported lower baseline sedentary time and higher physical activity compared to those in the lowest tertile.</p><figure class="table-figure"><table><thead><tr><th>Characteristic</th><th>Low PSC (n=283)</th><th>Medium PSC (n=282)</th><th>High PSC (n=282)</th><th>Overall (N=847)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Age (years), mean (SD)</td><td>37.1 (9.5)</td><td>38.4 (10.0)</td><td>39.2 (9.6)</td><td>38.2 (9.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Female (%)</td><td>51.2</td><td>54.6</td><td>56.0</td><td>53.9</td></tr><tr><td>University degree (%)</td><td>62.5</td><td>68.1</td><td>74.5</td><td>68.4</td></tr><tr><td>Daily sedentary time (hrs), mean (SD)</td><td>9.9 (2.3)</td><td>9.4 (2.0)</td><td>8.9 (1.9)</td><td>9.4 (2.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Physical activity (MET-min/week), median (IQR)</td><td>850 (420–1420)</td><td>1050 (580–1680)</td><td>1180 (620–1850)</td><td>980 (520–1650)</td></tr><tr><td>Job demands (1-5), mean (SD)</td><td>3.7 (0.8)</td><td>3.5 (0.7)</td><td>3.2 (0.8)</td><td>3.5 (0.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Ergonomic workspace adequacy (0-4), mean (SD)</td><td>2.1 (1.1)</td><td>2.6 (1.0)</td><td>3.0 (0.9)</td><td>2.6 (1.1)</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption>Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the study sample by psychosocial safety climate tertile.</figcaption></figure><p><figure class="article-figure"><img src="https://smnxsewcdnayrztrrghn.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/journal-assets/scholarly/workplace-psychosocial-safety-climate-and-sedentary-behavior-trajectories-in-remote-workers-a-longit-c2do9/figure-1-1779480269636.octet-stream" alt="Line graph showing sedentary behavior trajectories over three time points for high, medium, and low psychosocial safety climate groups" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%;height:auto;" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Line graph showing sedentary behavior trajectories over three time points for high, medium, and low psychosocial safety climate groups</figcaption></figure></p><h4>Growth curve models</h4><p>Table 2 presents the multilevel growth model results. Model 1 included only time and random effects. Model 2 added PSC and the PSC × time interaction. Model 3 added covariates. Across all models, the interaction between baseline PSC and time was negative and significant (Model 3: β = -0.17, 95% CI: -0.24 to -0.10, p < .001), indicating that each 1-point increase in PSC was associated with a 0.17 hour/day slower increase in sedentary time per 6-month interval. The main effect of time was positive (β = 0.34, p < .01), suggesting an overall upward trend in sedentary behavior among participants with average PSC. However, the interaction revealed that at high PSC levels (+1 SD), the slope became non-significant (estimated marginal slope = -0.02, p = .76), whereas at low PSC (-1 SD), the slope was significantly positive (0.42, p < .001).</p><figure class="table-figure"><table><thead><tr><th>Fixed effects</th><th>Model 1 β (95% CI)</th><th>Model 2 β (95% CI)</th><th>Model 3 β (95% CI)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>9.42 (9.16, 9.68)***</td><td>9.38 (9.12, 9.64)***</td><td>9.35 (9.09, 9.61)***</td></tr><tr><td>Time (per 6 months)</td><td>0.18 (0.06, 0.30)**</td><td>0.32 (0.12, 0.52)**</td><td>0.34 (0.12, 0.57)**</td></tr><tr><td>Baseline PSC (centered)</td><td></td><td>-0.13 (-0.31, 0.05)</td><td>-0.09 (-0.27, 0.09)</td></tr><tr><td>PSC × Time</td><td></td><td>-0.15 (-0.22, -0.08)***</td><td>-0.17 (-0.24, -0.10)***</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.01 (0.00, 0.02)</td></tr><tr><td>Gender (female vs male)</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.12 (-0.42, 0.18)</td></tr><tr><td>University degree</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.08 (-0.31, 0.15)</td></tr><tr><td>Job demands</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.14 (0.04, 0.24)*</td></tr><tr><td>Ergonomic workspace</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.21 (-0.35, -0.07)**</td></tr><tr><td>Physical activity (log MET)</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.10 (-0.18, -0.02)*</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption>Table 2. Multilevel growth model estimates for sedentary behavior (hours/day).</figcaption></figure><h4>Subgroup and sensitivity analyses</h4><p>We further examined trajectories by splitting the sample into low and high PSC groups (median split = 3.42). As seen in Figure 1 (conceptual depiction), the low-PSC group showed a steady rise in sedentary time from 9.9 to 10.7 hours/day over 12 months, while the high-PSC group remained stable around 8.8 hours/day. Sensitivity analyses excluding participants with extreme values or using alternative imputation methods yielded consistent results. Gender moderated the PSC effect: women in low-PSC environments exhibited a steeper increase (β = 0.23, p = .03) compared to men (β = 0.11, p = .12). Table 3 summarizes the stratified results, supporting the protective role of PSC.</p><figure class="table-figure"><table><thead><tr><th>Subgroup</th><th>N</th><th>Mean slope (hours/6mo) for Low PSC</th><th>Mean slope for High PSC</th><th>Difference (95% CI)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>All participants</td><td>847</td><td>0.36</td><td>-0.02</td><td>-0.38 (-0.52, -0.24)</td></tr><tr><td>Women</td><td>457</td><td>0.42</td><td>0.01</td><td>-0.41 (-0.60, -0.22)</td></tr><tr><td>Men</td><td>390</td><td>0.29</td><td>-0.05</td><td>-0.34 (-0.53, -0.15)</td></tr><tr><td>High job demands</td><td>423</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.05</td><td>-0.42 (-0.63, -0.21)</td></tr><tr><td>Low job demands</td><td>424</td><td>0.24</td><td>-0.09</td><td>-0.33 (-0.51, -0.15)</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption>Table 3. Stratified slopes of sedentary behavior trajectories by PSC group and moderators.</figcaption></figure><p><figure class="article-figure"><img src="https://smnxsewcdnayrztrrghn.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/journal-assets/scholarly/workplace-psychosocial-safety-climate-and-sedentary-behavior-trajectories-in-remote-workers-a-longit-c2do9/figure-2-1779480272958.octet-stream" alt="Bar chart of mean PSC scores by industry sector" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%;height:auto;" /><figcaption>Figure 2. Bar chart of mean PSC scores by industry sector</figcaption></figure></p>
<h2>Discussion</h2>
<p>This longitudinal study provides novel evidence that psychosocial safety climate is a significant predictor of sedentary behavior trajectories among remote workers. Consistent with our hypothesis, higher baseline PSC was associated with a slower increase in daily sedentary time over 12 months. In organizations with strong PSC, employees maintained stable sitting levels, whereas those in low-PSC contexts showed a marked increase. These findings extend prior work linking PSC to physical safety behavior (Bronkhorst, 2015; Yu et al., 2022) to a health behavior that is of growing concern in the remote work era.</p><p>The results align with the PRECEDE-PROCEED model (Kim & Choo, 2022), which posits that organizational climate acts as a predisposing factor for health behaviors. In high-PSC environments, workers likely perceive that taking movement breaks is both acceptable and encouraged, reducing guilt and fear of negative evaluation. Conversely, low-PSC climates may implicitly pressure employees to remain continuously at their workstations to demonstrate productivity, thereby reinforcing prolonged sitting. This interpretation is supported by the significant moderation by job demands: among workers with high demands, the protective effect of PSC was even more pronounced, suggesting that PSC buffers the exacerbating influence of work pressure on sedentary time.</p><p>We also observed a gender difference: women in low-PSC settings experienced a steeper rise in sedentary behavior. This may reflect gendered role expectations and differential sensitivity to psychosocial risks (Sears & Papini, 2019; Kelley & Tsai, 2023). Alternatively, it could be related to workspace ergonomics: women in our sample reported lower ergonomic adequacy in their home workspace, which might compound the risk (Ormerod et al., 2015; Mangili et al., 2023). These findings call for gender-sensitive interventions that address both PSC and physical environment factors.</p><p>Our study has several strengths, including the longitudinal design across three waves, the diverse sample from three countries, and the use of multilevel modeling to account for organizational clustering. However, limitations must be acknowledged. Sedentary behavior was self-reported, which may introduce recall bias; future studies should incorporate objective measurement via accelerometers or wearable devices (Patel et al., 2021; Guitar et al., 2017). Additionally, PSC was measured only at baseline, precluding analysis of how changes in PSC might affect sedentary trajectories. We also lacked data on specific workplace policies such as standing desk availability or scheduled break programs, which could confound the PSC effect. The sample was predominantly knowledge workers in high-income sectors, limiting generalizability to manual or service occupations (Glover & Sumberg, 2020; Prescott & Logan, 2016).</p><p>Despite these limitations, the findings have clear practical implications. Organizations that adopt a strong psychosocial safety climate—through leadership commitment, communication, and participatory health initiatives—may not only reduce psychosocial risks but also mitigate the physical health consequences of prolonged sitting. Interventions such as resistance exercise breaks (Rogers et al., 2024) or Fitbit-based activity prompts (Guitar et al., 2017) are more likely to be sustained if embedded in a supportive PSC. Policy makers and occupational health practitioners should consider PSC as a leverage point for holistic worker health promotion in remote work settings, rather than focusing solely on individual-level behavioral change (Weaver et al., 2023; Krick et al., 2024).</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>This study demonstrates that psychosocial safety climate is a robust predictor of sedentary behavior trajectories among remote workers, with high-PSC environments protecting against the typical rise in daily sitting time over 12 months. The findings underscore the need to integrate PSC into occupational health frameworks that address both psychosocial and physical health behaviors. Future research should investigate the mechanisms through which PSC influences movement behaviors, explore the role of objective monitoring, and test the effectiveness of PSC-focused organizational interventions in reducing sedentary time. As remote work becomes a permanent feature of the global labor market, creating a psychosocially safe climate may be one of the most effective strategies to safeguard worker health across multiple domains.</p>
<h2>References</h2>
<ol class="references">
<li>Kim, H., Choo, J. (2022). Socioecological Factors Associated With Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Among Workers: Using the PRECEDE-PROCEED Model. <em>Workplace Health & Safety</em>, <em>71</em>(1), 22-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/21650799221079388</li>
<li>Weaver, B., Kirk-Brown, A., Goodwin, D., Oxley, J. (2023). Psychosocial safety behavior: A scoping review of behavior-based approaches to workplace psychosocial safety. <em>Journal of Safety Research</em>, <em>84</em>, 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2022.10.006</li>
<li>Ozaydin, F., Demirci, H., Karayurek, Y. (2021). Relatıonship Between Occupational Accidents of Industrial Workers and Health Literacy and Workplace Safety Climate. <em>European Health Literacy Journal</em>, <em>1</em>(1), 47-57. https://doi.org/10.29228/ehlj.51105</li>
<li>Chae, D., Kim, S., Park, Y., Hwang, Y. (2015). The Effects of an Academic–Workplace Partnership Intervention to Promote Physical Activity in Sedentary Office Workers. <em>Workplace Health & Safety</em>, <em>63</em>(6), 259-266. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165079915579576</li>
<li>Guitar, N. A., MacDougall, A., Connelly, D. M., Knight, E. (2017). Fitbit Activity Trackers Interrupt Workplace Sedentary Behavior: A New Application. <em>Workplace Health & Safety</em>, <em>66</em>(5), 218-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165079917738264</li>
<li>Gyekye, S. A., Salminen, S. (2009). Educational status and organizational safety climate: Does educational attainment influence workers’ perceptions of workplace safety?. <em>Safety Science</em>, <em>47</em>(1), 20-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.12.007</li>
<li>Yu, M., Qin, W., Li, J. (2022). The influence of psychosocial safety climate on miners’ safety behavior: A cross-level research. <em>Safety Science</em>, <em>150</em>, 105719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105719</li>
<li>Kelley, J. C., Tsai, J. H. (2023). Protecting Outdoor Workers From Climate Change Impacts Through Interdisciplinary Collaboration. <em>Workplace Health & Safety</em>, <em>72</em>(3), 119-119. https://doi.org/10.1177/21650799231221136</li>
<li>Sanusi, A. (2020). Workplace Stress among Workers of Banks and Financial Organizations. <em>International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation</em>, <em>24</em>(1), 1317-1328. https://doi.org/10.37200/ijpr/v24i1/pr200231</li>
<li>Unknown (2012). Occupational Trajectories and Immigrant Worker Health. <em>Workplace Health & Safety</em>, <em>60</em>(11), 503-503. https://doi.org/10.3928/21650799-20121025-56</li>
<li>Rogers, E. M., Banks, N. F., Trachta, E. R., Barone Gibbs, B., Carr, L. J., Jenkins, N. D. M. (2024). Acceptability of Performing Resistance Exercise Breaks in the Workplace to Break Up Prolonged Sedentary Time: A Randomized Control Trial in U.S. Office Workers and Students. <em>Workplace Health & Safety</em>, <em>72</em>(6), 234-243. https://doi.org/10.1177/21650799231215814</li>
<li>Wahyuningtias, I. A., Erwandi, D., Nasri, S. M., Kadir, A. (2021). Kajian Hubungan Antara Iklim Keselamatan Psikososial (Psychosocial Safety Climate) dengan Perundungan di Tempat Kerja (Workplace Bullying) di PT.WID. <em>National Journal of Occupational Health and Safety</em>, <em>2</em>(1). https://doi.org/10.59230/njohs.v2i1.5264</li>
<li>Bronkhorst, B. (2015). Behaving safely under pressure: The effects of job demands, resources, and safety climate on employee physical and psychosocial safety behavior. <em>Journal of Safety Research</em>, <em>55</em>, 63-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2015.09.002</li>
<li>Unknown (2013). Promoting Universal Vaccination Among Workers. <em>Workplace Health & Safety</em>, <em>61</em>(7), 323-323. https://doi.org/10.3928/21650799-20130624-29</li>
<li>Sears, K. L., Papini, D. R. (2019). Psychosocial maladjustment arising from workplace sexual behavior directed at adolescent workers. <em>Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine</em>, <em>7</em>(1), 308-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2019.1653188</li>
<li>Reuter, E., Camba, J. D. (2017). Understanding emergency workers' behavior and perspectives on design and safety in the workplace. <em>Applied Ergonomics</em>, <em>59</em>, 73-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.08.023</li>
<li>Tort, S., Burch, J. (2020). Do workplace interventions to increase standing and/or walking improve musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary office workers?. <em>Cochrane Clinical Answers</em>. https://doi.org/10.1002/cca.3144</li>
<li>Unknown (2012). Occupational Trajectories and Immigrant Worker Health. <em>Workplace Health & Safety</em>, <em>60</em>(11), 503-503. https://doi.org/10.1177/216507991206001106</li>
<li>Wahyuning Tyas, I., Munawir, A., Zaika, Y., Al Yusainy, C. (2024). Effectiveness of Psychosocial Safety Climate in Construction Workers in Developing Countries: A Systematic Literature Review. <em>SSRN Electronic Journal</em>. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4985024</li>
<li>Skolodová, K. (2020). Protection of Workers against Psychosocial Risks in the Workplace. <em>Societas et iurisprudentia</em>, <em>8</em>(2), 116-135. https://doi.org/10.31262/1339-5467/2020/8/2/116-135</li>
<li>Ekeke, K. D., Nwaogazie, I. L., Nnadede, K. S. (2024). Modelling the Relationships of Psychosocial Hazard and Workplace Safety Outcomes among Construction Workers in Rivers State, Nigeria. <em>Asian Journal of Advanced Research and Reports</em>, <em>18</em>(4), 34-47. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajarr/2024/v18i4621</li>
<li>Patel, V., Chesmore, A., Legner, C., Pandey, S. (2021). Trends in Workplace Wearable Technologies and Connected‐Worker Solutions for Next‐Generation Occupational Safety, Health, and Productivity. <em>Advanced Intelligent Systems</em>, <em>4</em>(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/aisy.202100099</li>
<li>Glover, D., Sumberg, J. (2020). Youth and Food Systems Transformation. <em>Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems</em>, <em>4</em>. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00101</li>
<li>Prescott, S. L., Logan, A. (2016). Transforming Life: A Broad View of the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease Concept from an Ecological Justice Perspective. <em>International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health</em>, <em>13</em>(11), 1075-1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13111075</li>
<li>Krick, A., Arnold, M., Felfe, J. (2024). SelfCare when working from home: easier but also more important. <em>Frontiers in Organizational Psychology</em>, <em>2</em>. https://doi.org/10.3389/forgp.2024.1333689</li>
<li>Prescott, S. L., Hancock, T., Bland, J., Bosch, M. v. d., Jansson, J., Johnson, C. C. (2019). Eighth Annual Conference of inVIVO Planetary Health: From Challenges to Opportunities. <em>International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health</em>, <em>16</em>(21), 4302-4302. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16214302</li>
<li>Lam, C., Sanderson, M., Vu, D. T., Sayed, D., Latif, U., Chadwick, A. L. (2024). Musculoskeletal and Neuropathic Pain in COVID-19. <em>Diagnostics</em>, <em>14</em>(3), 332-332. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14030332</li>
<li>Decaro, S. P., Sarno, M. D., Anzani, A., Pierro, R. D., Prunas, A. (2021). Narcissistic Personality Traits and Sexual Dysfunction in Women: The Role of Body Image Self-Consciousness. <em>The Journal of Sexual Medicine</em>, <em>18</em>(11), 1891-1898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.08.007</li>
<li>Mangili, S., Mangili, S., Ferraguzzi, G., Capolongo, S. (2023). Assessing the quality of the built environment in dementia: a framework to evaluate long-term care facilities. <em>Population Medicine</em>, <em>5</em>(Supplement). https://doi.org/10.18332/popmed/163847</li>
<li>Ormerod, M., Newton, R., Phillips, J., Musselwhite, C., McGee, S., Russell, R. (2015). How can transport provision and associated built environment infrastructure be enhanced and developed to support the mobility needs of individuals as they age. <em>Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling)</em>.</li>
</ol>
</article>