## 4 Discussion  
This study aimed to investigate the effects of a 12-week workplace exercise program, conducted twice weekly, on the quality of life of workers whose primary job involves prolonged sitting. It was found that workers experienced an improvement in their perceived quality of life. The main observations included significant enhancements in general health, vitality, social aspects, and the mental health summary measure of the participants. However, there were no statistically significant improvements in other dimensions of quality of life, such as functional capacity, physical performance limitation, pain, emotional aspects, and mental health. Despite the overall improvements in quality of life, these were not significant. A systematic review by [PERSON] et al. [21] supports the results of this study, indicating that participation in any form of physical activity in the workplace can improve the mental quality of life for office workers. Additionally, studies like [PERSON] et al. [7] highlight the effectiveness of movement-based activities in reducing stress, even when performed remotely. [PERSON] et al. [38] further affirm that exercising during work hours, even briefly, contributes to relaxation and improvement in mental quality of life. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variables**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Pre-Intervention (T1)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Post-Intervention (T2)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{t}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{p}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{d}\)} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-7}  & **M** & **SD** & **M** & **SD** & & \\ \hline Physical Functioning & 95.26 & 6.34 & 94.21 & 6.29 & 0.78 & 0.22 & - \\ Limitations due to Physical Health & 91.77 & 15.19 & 89.13 & 14.72 & 0.78 & 0.30 & - \\ Pain & 71.79 & 17.86 & 73.89 & 13.80 & 0.55 & 0.31 & - \\ General Health & 63.89 & 20.65 & 70.74 & 22.65 & \(-0.49\) & 0.01 & 0.56 \\ Vitality & 51.63 & 16.53 & 61.87 & 15.90 & \(-2.43\) & 0.01 & 0.60 \\ Social Functioning & 80.92 & 22.19 & 89.47 & 9.56 & \(-2.59\) & 0.05 & 0.37 \\ Emotional Functioning & 86.85 & 16.96 & 85.96 & 17.14 & \(-1.61\) & 0.43 & - \\ Mental Health & 75.26 & 17.44 & 77.89 & 13.37 & 0.18 & 0.17 & - \\ Physical mean score & 79.63 & 9.81 & 81.87 & 8.72 & \(-1.00\) & 0.20 & - \\ Mental mean score & 73.66 & 15.18 & 78.79 & 9.00 & \(-0.87\) & 0.04 & 0.42 \\ Overall Quality of Life & 77.16 & 11.07 & 80.30 & 7.28 & \(-1.82\) & 0.10 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Notes: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; \(t=t\)-test value; \(p=\) significance value at 0.05; d = effect size. For exploratory reasons, the authors included data from 13 participants with an adherence rate below 75% (ranging between 60% and 70%) along with the 19 participants who met the initial criteria, and the results were similar to those reported in Table 1. In fact, including these 13 participants did not alter the significance of the various quality of life indicators. Therefore, for transparency, the authors presented the data from the 19 participants who had an adherence rate above 75% and attended both evaluation sessions. Additionally, for exploratory purposes, the authors analyzed data from the 19 participants with the inclusion of the 14 participants who had an adherence rate above 75% but failed the re-evaluation. Again, the results were similar to those reported in the Section 3, with the inclusion of these participants not altering the significance of the quality-of-life indicators. In fact, some indicators showed a greater effect size compared to the results with only 19 participants. In both cases, we use the Expectation-Maximization (EM) estimator, which is an iterative procedure. The process involves using auxiliary variables to estimate a value (Expectation) and then assessing whether this value is the most probable (Maximization). If the value is not the most probable, the procedure recalculates a more likely value.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive and inferential statistics of quality-of-life dimensions.