Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work

Interventions for reducing sedentary behaviour in community-dwelling older adults

BACKGROUND

Older adults are the most sedentary segment of society, often spending in excess of 8.5 hours a day sitting. Large amounts of time spent sedentary, defined as time spend sitting or in a reclining posture without spending energy, has been linked to an increased risk of chronic diseases, frailty, loss of function, disablement, social isolation, and premature death.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing sedentary behaviour amongst older adults living independently in the community compared to control conditions involving either no intervention or interventions that do not target sedentary behaviour.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, EPPI-Centre databases (Trials Register of Promoting Health Interventions (TRoPHI) and the Obesity and Sedentary behaviour Database), WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 18 January 2021. We also screened the reference lists of included articles and contacted authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs. We included interventions purposefully designed to reduce sedentary time in older adults (aged 60 or over) living independently in the community. We included studies if some of the participants had multiple comorbidities, but excluded interventions that recruited clinical populations specifically (e.g. stroke survivors).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and full-text articles to determine study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional data where required. Any disagreements in study screening or data extraction were settled by a third review author.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies in the review, six RCTs and one cluster-RCT, with a total of 397 participants. The majority of participants were female (n = 284), white, and highly educated. All trials were conducted in high-income countries. All studies evaluated individually based behaviour change interventions using a combination of behaviour change techniques such as goal setting, education, and behaviour monitoring or feedback. Four of the seven studies also measured secondary outcomes. The main sources of bias were related to selection bias (N = 2), performance bias (N = 6), blinding of outcome assessment (N = 2), and incomplete outcome data (N = 2) and selective reporting (N=1). The overall risk of bias was judged as unclear. Primary outcomes The evidence suggests that interventions to change sedentary behaviour in community-dwelling older adults may reduce sedentary time (mean difference (MD) -44.91 min/day, 95% confidence interval (CI) -93.13 to 3.32; 397 participants; 7 studies; I2 = 73%; low-certainty evidence). We could not pool evidence on the effect of interventions on breaks in sedentary behaviour or time spent in specific domains such as TV time, as data from only one study were available for these outcomes. Secondary outcomes We are uncertain whether interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour have any impact on the physical or mental health outcomes of community-dwelling older adults. We were able to pool change data for the following outcomes. • Physical function (MD 0.14 Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.66; higher score is favourable; 98 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 26%; low-certainty evidence). • Waist circumference (MD 1.14 cm, 95% CI -1.64 to 3.93; 100 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). • Fitness (MD -5.16 m in the 6-minute walk test, 95% CI -36.49 to 26.17; higher score is favourable; 80 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 29%; low-certainty evidence). • Blood pressure: systolic (MD -3.91 mmHg, 95% CI -10.95 to 3.13; 138 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 73%; very low-certainty evidence) and diastolic (MD -0.06 mmHg, 95% CI -5.72 to 5.60; 138 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 97%; very low-certainty evidence). • Glucose blood levels (MD 2.20 mg/dL, 95% CI -6.46 to 10.86; 100 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). No data were available on cognitive function, cost-effectiveness or adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not clear whether interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour are effective at reducing sedentary time in community-dwelling older adults. We are uncertain if these interventions have any impact on the physical or mental health of community-dwelling older adults. There were few studies, and the certainty of the evidence is very low to low, mainly due to inconsistency in findings and imprecision. Future studies should consider interventions aimed at modifying the environment, policy, and social and cultural norms. Future studies should also use device-based measures of sedentary time, recruit larger samples, and gather information about quality of life, cost-effectiveness, and adverse event data.

Interventions outside the workplace for reducing sedentary behaviour in adults under 60 years of age

BACKGROUND

Adults spend a majority of their time outside the workplace being sedentary. Large amounts of sedentary behaviour increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and both all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality.

OBJECTIVES

Primary • To assess effects on sedentary time of non-occupational interventions for reducing sedentary behaviour in adults under 60 years of age Secondary • To describe other health effects and adverse events or unintended consequences of these interventions • To determine whether specific components of interventions are associated with changes in sedentary behaviour • To identify if there are any differential effects of interventions based on health inequalities (e.g. age, sex, income, employment) SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, and ClinicalTrials.gov on 14 April 2020. We checked references of included studies, conducted forward citation searching, and contacted authors in the field to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs of interventions outside the workplace for community-dwelling adults aged 18 to 59 years. We included studies only when the intervention had a specific aim or component to change sedentary behaviour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional information or data when required. We examined the following primary outcomes: device-measured sedentary time, self-report sitting time, self-report TV viewing time, and breaks in sedentary time.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials involving 1770 participants, all undertaken in high-income countries. Ten were RCTs and three were cluster RCTs. The mean age of study participants ranged from 20 to 41 years. A majority of participants were female. All interventions were delivered at the individual level. Intervention components included personal monitoring devices, information or education, counselling, and prompts to reduce sedentary behaviour. We judged no study to be at low risk of bias across all domains. Seven studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessment due to use of self-report outcomes measures. Primary outcomes Interventions outside the workplace probably show little or no difference in device-measured sedentary time in the short term (mean difference (MD) -8.36 min/d, 95% confidence interval (CI) -27.12 to 10.40; 4 studies; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions reduce device-measured sedentary time in the medium term (MD -51.37 min/d, 95% CI -126.34 to 23.59; 3 studies; I² = 84%; very low-certainty evidence) We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace reduce self-report sitting time in the short term (MD -64.12 min/d, 95% CI -260.91 to 132.67; I² = 86%; very low-certainty evidence). Interventions outside the workplace may show little or no difference in self-report TV viewing time in the medium term (MD -12.45 min/d, 95% CI -50.40 to 25.49; 2 studies; I² = 86%; low-certainty evidence) or in the long term (MD 0.30 min/d, 95% CI -0.63 to 1.23; 2 studies; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). It was not possible to pool the five studies that reported breaks in sedentary time given the variation in definitions used. Secondary outcomes Interventions outside the workplace probably have little or no difference on body mass index in the medium term (MD -0.25 kg/m², 95% CI -0.48 to -0.01; 3 studies; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Interventions may have little or no difference in waist circumference in the medium term (MD -2.04 cm, 95% CI -9.06 to 4.98; 2 studies; I² = 65%; low-certainty evidence). Interventions probably have little or no difference on glucose in the short term (MD -0.18 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.06; 2 studies; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) and medium term (MD -0.08 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.05; 2 studies, I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) Interventions outside the workplace may have little or no difference in device-measured MVPA in the short term (MD 1.99 min/d, 95% CI -4.27 to 8.25; 4 studies; I² = 23%; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions improve device-measured MVPA in the medium term (MD 6.59 min/d, 95% CI -7.35 to 20.53; 3 studies; I² = 70%; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace improve self-reported light-intensity PA in the short-term (MD 156.32 min/d, 95% CI 34.34 to 278.31; 2 studies; I² = 79%; very low-certainty evidence). Interventions may have little or no difference on step count in the short-term (MD 226.90 steps/day, 95% CI -519.78 to 973.59; 3 studies; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence) No data on adverse events or symptoms were reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions outside the workplace to reduce sedentary behaviour probably lead to little or no difference in device-measured sedentary time in the short term, and we are uncertain if they reduce device-measured sedentary time in the medium term. We are uncertain whether interventions outside the workplace reduce self-reported sitting time in the short term. Interventions outside the workplace may result in little or no difference in self-report TV viewing time in the medium or long term. The certainty of evidence is moderate to very low, mainly due to concerns about risk of bias, inconsistent findings, and imprecise results. Future studies should be of longer duration; should recruit participants from varying age, socioeconomic, or ethnic groups; and should gather quality of life, cost-effectiveness, and adverse event data. We strongly recommend that standard methods of data preparation and analysis are adopted to allow comparison of the effects of interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour.

Muscle activity patterns and spinal shrinkage in office workers using a sit-stand workstation versus a sit workstation

Reducing sitting time by means of sit-stand workstations is an emerging trend, but further evidence is needed regarding their health benefits. This cross-sectional study compared work time muscle activity patterns and spinal shrinkage between office workers (aged 24-62, 58.3% female) who used either a sit-stand workstation (Sit-Stand group, n = 10) or a traditional sit workstation (Sit group, n = 14) for at least the past three months. During one typical workday, muscle inactivity and activity from quadriceps and hamstrings were monitored using electromyography shorts, and spinal shrinkage was measured using stadiometry before and after the workday. Compared with the Sit group, the Sit-Stand group had less muscle inactivity time (66.2 ± 17.1% vs. 80.9 ± 6.4%, p = 0.014) and more light muscle activity time (26.1 ± 12.3% vs. 14.9 ± 6.3%, p = 0.019) with no significant difference in spinal shrinkage (5.62 ± 2.75 mm vs. 6.11 ± 2.44 mm). This study provides evidence that working with sit-stand workstations can promote more light muscle activity time and less inactivity without negative effects on spinal shrinkage. Practitioner Summary: This cross-sectional study compared the effects of using a sit-stand workstation to a sit workstation on muscle activity patterns and spinal shrinkage in office workers. It provides evidence that working with a sit-stand workstation can promote more light muscle activity time and less inactivity without negative effects on spinal shrinkage.