Aktivitetsbaserade kontor - Planering och utfall. Linda Rolfö Lund

Aktivitetsbaserade kontor - Planering och utfall Linda Rolfö Lund 2018-11-15

Dagens agenda det har kommit önskemål om att ha en utbildning i nedanstående med dig Om/nybyggnation. Linda Rolfö Från traditionellt kontor till aktivitetsbaserat kontor. 1/2 dagsutbildning. Hur en optimal flyttprocess bör vara.

Dagens agenda Goda exempel på implementeringar av aktivitetsbaserade kontor Nöjdhet och prestation innan och efter flytt från öppna kontorslandskap till aktivitetsbaserade kontor Planlösning, täckningsgrad och estetik i aktivitetsbaserade kontor Bör man applicera regler i det aktivitetsbaserade kontoret? Vad vet vi om organisatoriska förutsättningar för implementering av aktivitetsbaserade kontor? Arbetsmiljöingenjörer och ergonomers roll i planering och projektering av nya arbetsmiljöer

Explore/Investigate/Identify Jämförelse mellan kontor Kontorslösningen Planeringsprocessen Regler Organisatoriska förutsättningar Arbetsmiljöexperters roll Agenda

Activity-based Flexible office (A-FO)

Objectives

Skulle du kunna tänka dig att sitta i ett aktivitetsbaserat kontor?

Why study A-FOs? Sometimes after lunch, you have to go four laps and just pick a spot in the middle of a team that you know speaks a lot, because there are no desks available. I cannot choose (I12-Case 1). Support has decreased since everyone is isolating themselves. It s an unexpected effect of this environment, whereby more people want to protect themselves. More who are not present and you don t know where they are (I6-Case 5).

Preference for the A-FO Proportion of employees 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.38 0.47 0.54 0.58 0.67 0.78 0.92 n=695, response rate 0.75

Results Case 1: Relocation from OPO to A-FO Background noise (p=0.03) Air quality (p=0.002) Temperature (NS) Visual comfort (NS) Amount of light (NS) Outdoor view (p<0.001) Aesthetics (p<0.001) Visitor space (p=0.014) Adjustability of furniture (NS) Distance to colleague (NS) Workspace separation (NS) Ease of interaction (NS) Possibility of privacy (NS) Auditory privacy (p=0.039) Speech level (NS) Visual privacy (NS) Personalization (NS) Baseline ratings (OPO) Follow-up ratings (ABW) -1,5-0,5 0,5 1,5 2,5 Mean satisfaction ratings

Results Case2: Relocation from OPO to A-FO Aesthetics (p=<0.001) Functionality of furniture (p=0.02) Access to equipment (p=0.009) Distance to colleague (NS) Workspace separation(ns) Possibility of privacy (p=<0.001) Noise level (NS) Airflow (p=<0.001) Temperature (p=0.005) Amount of light (p=<0.001) Visual comfort (p=<0.003) Outdoor view (p=<0.001) Pre-relocation Post-relocation -2 0 2 4

Results Study I (C1) Study II (C2) n=28 Aesthetics p<0.001, n=34 p<0.001 Outdoor view p<0.001, n=34 p<0.001 Air quality p=0.002, n=34 p<0.001 Noise 2/3 questions p=0.03-0.039, n=34 1/1 question NS NS 1/3 questions, n=34 Possibility to privacy NS, n=34 <0.001 Communication parameters Satisfied with physical work environment NS 4/5 questions, n=66 1/5 question p=0.014, n=66 88% (sign. from neutral), n=66 5/5 questions p= 0.01-0.035 From Pre 54% to Post 93 % Preference for the A-FO Pre 16%, Post 47%, n=66 From Pre 68% to Post 82% Perceived performance NS 2/2 questions 4/4 questions p= 0.004-0.042 Rolfö, Eklund & Jahncke, 2017; Rolfö 2018

Percentage of employees Percentage of employees Case 1 Case 2 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 Baseline 30 Follow-up 20 10 0 Pre-relocation Post-relocation Preferred office type

C1: Insurance company

C2: IT service and support provider

C3: Health and safety knowledge provider

C4: IT, telecom and technique consulting providers

Results Workspace C1 C2 C3 C4 Acoustics Amount of background noise Noise level (vent., printer, speech) Speech level C1 C2 C3 C4 N/A

Results Workspace C1 C2 C3 C4 Privacy Acoustic privacy Visual privacy (not being obs.) Visual distr. from bypassers Visual distr. from people closeby C1 C2 C3 C4 N/A N/A

Workspace ratios C1 C2 C3 C4 Desk-sharing ratio 0.68 0.72 0.9 0.61 Small meeting room ratio (per employee) 0.09 0.08 0.13 0.04 Back-up room ratio 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.06 Open-plan surface area (per employee) Open-plan surface area (per workstation) Maximum no. of workstations in open-plan areas 5.1 m 2 3.5 m 2 7.5 m 2 3.5 m 2 7.5 m 2 4.8 m 2 8.3 m 2 5.7 m 2 28 24 16 45 Results Workspace Space configuration Distance to colleague Workstation separation Possibility of privacy Outdoor view C1 C2 C3 C4

Results Aim 3: Workspace Communication and cooperation Cooperation Intra-team communication Intra-team spreading of info. Intra-team spreading of ideas Inter-team spreading of ideas Getting help from colleague C1 C2 C3 C4 N/A N/A N/A Interpersonal relations Atmosphere Involvement in community Work environment satisfaction Environmental satisfaction Preference for A-FO Perceived performance Individual productivity Intra-team productivity Office optimally designed for work tasks N/A

Results Workspace C1 C2 C3 C4

Ratios Workspace Parametersratios C1 C2 C3 C4 C1 C2 Desk-sharing ratio 0.68 0.72 0.9 0.61 Small meeting room ratio (per employee) 0.09 0.08 0.13 0.04 Back-up room ratio 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.06 Open-plan surface area (per employee) Open-plan surface area (per workstation) Maximum no. of workstations in open-plan areas 5.1 m 2 3.5 m 2 7.5 m 2 3.5 m 2 7.5 m 2 4.8 m 2 8.3 m 2 5.7 m 2 28 24 16 45 C3 C4 Mean percentage of time spent at office 92 % 64 % 81 % 84 %

Interior design

Summary Spacious ratios Zoning Spacious ratios Zoning, (Well separated) No corridors Sat. with space configuration Sat. with privacy Mental working conditions Short distance between zones Sat. with communication Sat. with interpersonal relations

Hur fungerar Planlösningar Täckningsgrader Estetik i de kontor ni varit på?

Planning process The whole process High aims

The company IT service and support provider Best workplace in Sweden 35 in workforce Growing out Discussions within company

Relocation planned Relocation executed Jun Sep Föreställningar om flexkontor Methodology Autumn 2013 Spring 2014 Autumn 2014 Spring 2015 Autumn 2015 Spring 2016

Relocation planned Relocation executed Jun Sep Föreställningar om flexkontor Methodology Autumn 2013 Spring 2014 Autumn 2014 Spring 2015 Work analysis R -Beehives -Focus groups -Diaries -Questionnaire Autumn 2015 Spring 2016

Relocation planned Relocation executed Jun Sep Föreställningar om flexkontor Methodology Questionnaire 1 Questionnaire 2 Questionnaire 3 Questionnaire 4 Questionnaire 5 Employees 37 40 44 49 50 Complete responses 34 28 38 41 45 Response rate 92 % 70 % 86 % 84 % 90 % Autumn 2013 Spring 2014 Autumn 2014 Spring 2015 Work analysis R Questionnaire 1 R Questionnaire 2 R Questionnaire 3 R -Beehives -Focus groups -Diaries -Questionnaire Autumn 2015 Spring 2016 Questionnaire 4 R Questionnaire 5 R

Relocation planned Relocation executed Jun Sep Föreställningar om flexkontor Methodology Autumn 2013 Spring 2014 Autumn 2014 Spring 2015 Work analysis R Questionnaire 1 R Questionnaire 2 R Questionnaire 3 R -Beehives -Focus groups -Diaries -Questionnaire Autumn 2015 Spring 2016 Questionnaire 4 R Questionnaire 5 R

Relocation planned Relocation executed Jun Sep Föreställningar om flexkontor Methodology Autumn 2013 Spring 2014 Autumn 2014 Spring 2015 Work analysis R Questionnaire 1 R Questionnaire 2 R Questionnaire 3 R -Beehives -Focus groups -Diaries -Questionnaire Autumn 2015 Spring 2016 Questionnaire 4 R Questionnaire 5 Individual interviews Observations R R R

Deciding office concept

Relocation planned Relocation executed Jun Sep Designing the physical environment Autumn 2013 Spring 2014 Autumn 2014 Spring 2015 Work analysis R Questionnaire 1 R Questionnaire 2 R Questionnaire 3 R -Beehives -Focus groups -Diaries -Questionnaire Feedback on flowchart Deciding office Reference site visit concept Autumn 2015 Spring 2016 Questionnaire 4 R Questionnaire 5 Individual interviews Observations R R R

Relocation planned Relocation executed Jun Sep Designing the organizational and social environment Autumn 2013 Spring 2014 Autumn 2014 Spring 2015 Work analysis R Questionnaire 1 R Questionnaire 2 R Questionnaire 3 R -Beehives -Focus groups -Diaries -Questionnaire Feedback on Deciding office Rules workshop flowchart concept Reference site visit Autumn 2015 Spring 2016 Questionnaire 4 R Questionnaire 5 Individual interviews Observations R R R

Relocation planned Relocation executed Jun Sep Designing the organizational and social environment Autumn 2013 Spring 2014 Autumn 2014 Spring 2015 Work analysis R Questionnaire 1 R Questionnaire 2 R Questionnaire 3 -Beehives -Focus groups Rules workshop Feedback lecture -Diaries -Questionnaire Groundbreaking Interior design Feedback on Deciding office ceremony group flowchart concept Reference site visit Kickoff and workshop R Autumn 2015 Spring 2016 Questionnaire 4 R Questionnaire 5 Individual interviews Observations R R R

Relocation Performance and distraction Intervju Always Often 5,0 4,5 4,0 3,5 Productivity n=28-46 Sometimes Seldom 3,0 2,5 2,0 1,5 Distraction n=28-46 Never 1,0 1 2 3 4 5 Perceived productivity and distraction

Relocation Satisfaction with the physical Intervju environment Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 4,0 3,5 3,0 2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 1 2 3 4 5 Satifaction n=28-45

Performance and distraction Intervju Boring Repulsive Stressful Noisy Calm Exposed Messy Inspiring Pleasant Calm Quiet Pulsating Private Well-ordered 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Relocation planned Relocation executed Jun Sep Intervju Conclusion Nothing was left to chance. As a company, they took the process very seriously (I-402) Autumn 2013 Spring 2014 Autumn 2014 Spring 2015 Work analysis R Questionnaire 1 R Questionnaire 2 R Questionnaire 3 -Beehives -Focus groups Rules workshop Feedback lecture -Diaries -Questionnaire Groundbreaking Interior design Feedback on Deciding office ceremony group flowchart concept Reference site visit Kickoff and workshop R Autumn 2015 Spring 2016 Questionnaire 4 R Questionnaire 5 Individual interviews Observations R R R

Föreställningar om flexkontor Type of company Total employees Number of interviewees Gender Female/Male Age, mean (minmax) Case 1 (C1) Case 2 (C2) Case 3 (C3) Case 4 (C4) Knowledge and training provider IT service and support providers 40 49 Insurance company 79 + approx. 20 consultants Science park 13 + approx. 30 external stakeholders 24 43 26 12 20/4 5/38 10/16 7/5 50 (37-65) 38 (23-61) 43 (31-60) 47 (27-65) Babapour & Rolfö, in press

Föreställningar om flexkontor Babapour & Rolfö, in press

Results Design and implementation processes C1 C2 C3 C5 Involvement before deciding on the office type No Yes Yes No Needs and Activity analysis No Yes Yes Yes Employees participation in decision on policies Clear communication of policies No Yes Yes No N/A Yes Yes N/A Years of planning 0,75 2,5 1,5 0,5 Babapour & Rolfö, in press

Implementera ABW Skulle du rekommendera att skaffa ett ABW om man inte hade tiden som ni har haft på er? Absolut inte! Du måste ha den tiden på dig för det finns inga genvägar. Det går att korta ner människa-process-delen men det måste ändå vara lika omfattande. Annars kommer det aldrig gå. Alla måste få vara med och bestämma och tycka till. Om någon bestämmer så här ska du göra så fallerar konceptet. Man måste gå igenom hela processen själv. Man kan inte kopiera någon annans.

Results Design and implementation processes Meaningful objectives Financial and time resources In-depth work analysis Employee participation and empowerment Inclusion of org. and social change Open and adequate information Management commitment (Rolfö, 2018)

Summary Spacious ratios Zoning Sat. with space configuration Spacious ratios Zoning, (Well separated) No corridors Sat. with privacy Mental working conditions Short distance between zones Sat. with communication Sat. with interpersonal relations

Hur ser era erfarenheter ut gällande Målsättning/tid/medarbetarinvolvering/ organisatoriskt fokus ut i implementeringsprocessen?

POLICIES FOR SHARING WORKSPACES IN ACTIVITY-BASED FLEXIBLE OFFICES Linda Rolfö & Maral Babapour KTH & Chalmers, Sweden Babapour & Rolfö, in press

Policies Desk-sharing policies Babapour & Rolfö, in press

Policies Speech Policies Babapour & Rolfö, in press

Outline Compare explicit/implicit policies Compare Compliance/Disregardance Work condition consequences Planning process Babapour & Rolfö, in press

Föreställningar om flexkontor Babapour & Rolfö, in press

Babapour & Rolfö, in press

Desk-sharing policies 1. To remove belongings 2. Restrictions on using the same workstation in open areas in consecutive days 3. Restrictions on using workstations in scarce zones in consecutive days Babapour & Rolfö, in press

Desk-sharing policies Babapour & Rolfö, in press

Babapour & Rolfö, in press

Speech policie 4. To interact with colleagues in different zones 5. To speak on the phone in different zones Babapour & Rolfö, in press

Speech policies Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Strictly quiet zone Semi-quiet zone Lively zone Babapour & Rolfö, in press

Speech policies Babapour & Rolfö, in press

Speech policies Case 3 Case 1 Babapour & Rolfö, in press

Intervju Outline Compare explicit/implicit policies Compare Compliance/Disregardance Work condition consequences Planning process Rules 1. To remove belongings 2. Restrictions on using the same workstation in open areas in consecutive days 3. Restrictions on using workstations in scarce zones in consecutive days 4. To interact with colleagues in different zones 5. To speak on the phone in different zones

Hur och vilka regler har implementerats i era fall?

Organizational factors

Results Organizational preconditions Predictors of preference for the Activity-based Flexible Office Factors Categories n Correlation coefficient Concentration A-FO / Other office types 473 0.156 Speaking on the phone A-FO / Other office types 485 0.133 Writing/Generating texts A-FO / Other office types 631 0.088 Innovation A-FO / Other office types 631 0.124 Learning and searching for information A-FO / Other office types 631 0.092

Results Organizational preconditions Predictors of preference for the Activity-based Flexible Office Factors Categories n Correlation coefficient Office type before relocation Cell office / Open-plan office 588 0.21

Results Organizational preconditions Predictors of preference for the Activity-based Flexible Office Factors Categories n Correlation coefficient Preference for the A-FO before relocation A-FO / Other office types 414 0.584

Vilka organisatoriska faktorer har ni sett/ tror ni påverkar utfallet?

Discussion

Discussion A-FO definition Desk-sharing policies High Low Flexible office / Hot-desking Open-plan office Activity-based flexible office Combi-office (or an over-crowded openplan office) Low High Workspace diversity (enabled by plan layout and speech policies)

Objectives

Conclusion Linda Rolfö lrolfo@kth.se Tel: +46 8790 4826

Deltagande i projektering 263 svarande 50,0 45,0 40,0 35,0 30,0 25,0 20,0 15,0 10,0 5,0,0 Aldrig 1-5 gånger Mer än 5 gånger

397 svarande Deltagande i projektering

Påverkansmöjligheter 8 0

Hur kan man förmedla till de som är inblandade i byggprocessen att arbetsmiljöingenjörer och ergonomer kan bidra i projektering och utformning av arbetsmiljöer i ny-, om- och tillbyggnader? Kategori Skapa kompetens hos FHV och AMI/Erg. Medvetandegör kunskap hos andra aktörer genom utbildning Antal kommentarer 11 70 Byggbranschen Arkitekter Blivande ingenjörer Arbetsmiljökommittéer och skyddskommittéer Fackliga organisationer Chefer och företag Målgrupp för information och marknadsföring Kanaler för Marknadsföring Marknadsföringsinnehåll Ställ krav Övrigt - Arbetsmiljökrav - Lagkrav - Checklistor och kravspecifikationer - Krav för bygglov - Skapa rutiner - Att FHV kan bidra - Tjänster - Bred kompetens - Goda exempel - Vinster - Kostnadsförluster - Tidig delaktighet 79 118 168 66 28 - Möten - Hemsida och nyhetsbrev - Kampanjer - Artiklar - Branschorganisationer - AV - Kontakter - Relation med kundföretag

Metoder och roller Expertmetoder Delaktighetsmetoder Facilitatorrollen Politisk navigator

Konsultroller Accepterande Katalysatorroll Konfronterande Preskriptiv Teorier /principer /metoder (Blake and Mouton 1985)

Roller för FHV Oberoende, partsneutral Expertroll Verka för en god arbetsmiljö

Ole Broberg, DTU Engineering Systems 7 ROLE OFTHE ERGONOMIST POLITICAL REFLECTIVE NAVIGATOR

POLITICAL REFLECTIVE NAVIGATOR POLITICAL Pursuing a health and safety agenda Building a health and safety network REFLECTIVE Take stock of the situation Role shifting Mobilising different knowledge types Ole Broberg, DTU Engineering Systems 86

POLITICAL REFLECTIVE NAVIGATOR POLITICAL Pursuing a health and safety agenda Building a health and safety network REFLECTIVE Take stock of the situation Role shifting Mobilising different knowledge types NAVIGATOR Navigate in a complex design project Understand the actors different positions Able to have the employees represented Translator between different languages Ole Broberg, DTU Engineering Systems 87

POLITICAL REFLECTIVE NAVIGATOR Understand design projects and the language of engineers and architects Stakeholder analysis Change processes = political processes Navigate in organisations Understand and translating between different knowledge domains Role shifting and mobilising different types of knowledge Proactive and persistent Ole Broberg, DTU Engineering Systems 88

Finance SOFT-modellen SSpace O Work Pratice Organization F Technology T

SOFT-modellen

Implementera ABW

Ergonomi Implementera ABW

Implementera ABW

Spagettidiagram

Functions layout design game

Riskbedömning ROSA

Vad är målet med medarbetarinvolveringen? Vad är öppet i SOFT? Vem ska delta? Vad är din roll? Välj medierande objekt Passar objekten deltagarna? Sätt spelregler PARTICIPATORY Hur ska resultaten överföras till projekteringsprocessen? Förbered ett manus på förhand METHODS Ole Broberg, DTU Engineering Systems 40

ethods for office planning hange drivers & Vision Explore the organisation's urpose with the change, esired strategies, structures, ork process and culture articipatory methods Analysis - of the existing work/workplace, needs and activities Conceptualization and visualization -match needs to concept Detailed planning Post-relocation evaluation orkshops 34 SOFT 19 Architectural drawing analysis 10 Improvement logging 32 Interviews 5,36 rainstorming 5 Space utilization studies 29 Flow simulation (flow in shoeboxes) 8 Feedback training 34 Follow-up questionnaires 5 oundrobin 40 Activity/work analysis 5,16,34 1:1 + Roleplay 8,15 Scenario analysis 6,23 orming of workgroups 34 Design dialogs 15 Scenario analysis 6,7,23 1:1 + Roleplay 8 isit/excursion/photo Safari 7 Workbook 7,35 Layout design game 7 ood board 34 ErgoVSM 20 Workshop on behavioural rules 31 WAT 37 Usability analysis 4 Design decision group 40,41 rofessional methods Scenario analysis 6,23 Needfinding 28 Workshops 34 Interviews 5,36 Diaries 14 Questionnaires 5 Forming of workgroups for HR/IT 34 isk assessment 2 Risk assessment 2 Risk assessment 2,25 Risk assessment 2,25 Risk assessment (e.g. ROSA) 25 ommunicative methods Design and implementation processes Results Methods framework for office design and implementation Requirement specifications 26,41 Follow-up requirement specification 26,41 Supplier meetings Follow up - usability analysis 4 Observations 5,36 Follow-up checklists 5,3 Follow-up requirement specification 26,41 Follow-up Checklists 5,3 Checklists? 5,3 Follow-up checklists 5,3 Follow-up requirement specification 26,41 Measurement of Speech transmission index (STI) 18 Follow-up space utilization 29 Measurement of Speech transmission index (STI) 18 resentations/meetings 38 Presentations/meetings 38 Mock-ups 7,38 ScetchUp 7,27 Presentations/meetings 38 ewsletters 38 Newsletters 38 Models 7,38 Mood board 34 Newsletters 38 ntranet 38 Intranet 38 Mood board 34 Intranet 38 Suggestion box 33 Relocation

Evaluation of framework The methods framework made me think about how to conduct my work (Q1-8) A mental fundamental structure (Q2-1)

Course in workplace planning and design Preparatory work: Contact clients, Specify problem Course day 1: Learn methods framework and methods Intervention at client: Use a method Course day 2: Presentation and discussion

1. Friktioner och konflikter som kan uppstå pga. ABAlösningen och hur man kan hantera dem? 2. Vad vet vi om olika störningsmoment och hur man kan reducera dem? 3. Finns det någon enkel termometer för att snabbt mäta personalens upplevelser, erfarenheter och fånga problemområden innan de hinner växa till sig?

3 nivåer Ambitioner och målsättning Interventioner Implementering Forskningslitteratur Nivåer Rogier van Koetsveld and Luc Kamperman, 2011

Forskningslitteratur Produktivitet i ABW Negativ påverkan på produktivitet Samma akustiska problem som i kontorslandskap (Banbury and Berry, 2005) Medarbetare i ABW är mindre distraherade än i kontorslandskap (Seddigh et al. 2014) 45% svarade att de är mindre effektiva i ABW än i cellkontor (Brunnberg, 2000, konferensbidrag) Hot-desking (inte ha fasta arbetsplatser) har en vissa negativa konsekvenser: Transporttider (Wolfeld, 2010) Installering och acklimateriseringstid (Gorgievski, 2010) Hitta lämplig arbetsplats (Brunnberg, 2010, konferensbidrag) Hitta kollegor (van der Voordt, 2003) Positiv påverkan på produktivitet Förbättrad kommunikation (Vos and Voordt, 2002, de Croon) Underlättar spontan kommunikation (Wolfeld, 2010) Förbättrad tillgänglighet av kollegor (Wolfeld, 2010) Ökar gruppkänsla (Vos and Voordt, 2002) Underlättar inlärning (Brill, 2001) Autonomi Val av arbetsplats (Vos and Voordt, 2002)

Forskningslitteratur Nöjdhet i ABW Negativ påverkan på tillfredsställelse Otillräcklig avskildhet (Gorgievski, 2010) Audiell avskildhet Visuell avskildhet (Marquardt, 2002) Förlorade kognitiva fördelar med att sprida ut papper (Lansdale, 2011) 10-20% tycker illa om icke-tilldelade arbetsplatser (Gorgievski, 2010) Positiv påverkan på tillfredsställelse Arkitektur och layout Avancerad ICT (van der Voordt et al., 2008) Autonomi (Danielsson, 2008) Kontroll till avskildhet ( Nya möbler (Marquardt, 2002) De flesta studier drar slutsatsen att medarbetare generellt sett är nöjda i ABWs (Van der vordt 2002; Meijer, 2014, Gorgievski et al., 2010; Lansdale, 2011; Danielsson och Bodin, 2008)

Hälsa Källa: Bodin Danielsson, 2010 http://www.avhandlingar.se/avhandling/95024e4543 /

Preference for the A-FO Proportion of employees 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.38 0.47 0.54 0.58 0.67 0.78 0.92 Org. type Public Public Public Municip ality Private Public Private Non-prof Private Private Company size 226 144 98 152? 100 46 160 49 50 65 at office Respondents Females/Male 148 67/81 85 25/60 57 23/34 152 50/102 66 32/34 35 24/11 24 16/6 36 28/8 46 6/40 40 23/17 s Response rate 66 % 64 % 60 % 85 % 84 % 76 % 73% 90 % 92 % 58 % n=695, response rate 0.75