The introduction of sit-stand worktables; aspects of attitudes, compliance and satisfaction

Traditional versus dynamic sitting: Lumbar spine kinematics and pain during computer work and activity guided tasks

Dynamic sitting may mitigate low back pain during prolonged seated work. The current study compared pelvis and lumbar spine kinematics, pain, and work productivity, in traditional and dynamic sitting. Sixteen participants completed three 20-min blocks of computer work and activity guided tasks in a traditional office chair or backless and multiaxial rotating seat pan while kinematics were measured from accelerometers on the low back. Pain ratings were recorded on a visual analogue scale every 10 min. Similar pelvis and lumbar kinematics emerged when performing computer work in traditional and dynamic sitting. Pelvis and lumbar sagittal and frontal plane shifts and fidgets were largest for dynamic sitting in the activity guided tasks. Buttocks pain was higher in dynamic sitting, but low back pain and work productivity were unaffected. Dynamic sitting increased spine movement during activity guided tasks, without negatively impacting lumbar kinematics, low back pain, or productivity during seated computer work.

Investigating the influence of keyboard inclinations on sitting and standing workstations

Given the growing global computer workforce, concerns exist about the escalation of computer related injury with Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) being one of the most reported work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) among office workers. The optimal range of keyboard angles for sitting and standing positions based on wrist posture, forearm muscle activities and user preference as well as the keyboard location in relation to user position were analysed. 30 volunteers with an above 40 words per minute typing speed participated in this study. Result show that, although user prefer to use positive keyboard angle, the negatively tilted keyboard is more ergonomically friendly at both sitting and standing workstations, reducing muscle activity and awkward wrist posture while maintaining performance. The findings indicate that negative sloped keyboard might have the possibility to reduce the risk of developing CTS in office workers.Practitioner summary: This study determines the range of optimal slope of keyboard angle in a sit and stand workstation. Our results indicate a trend in the negative slope keyboard as an ergonomically friendly option for the intervention to Carpal tunnel pressure.

Stand-Capable Workstations Reduce Occupational Sedentary Time Among Administrative Workers

OCCUPATIONAL APPLICATIONSIn this study, we found that workers who use stand-biased desks stood more and sat less during their workday compared to workers who use traditional desks. Stand-biased users also experienced significantly less lower back discomfort compared to both traditional and sit-stand workstation users. Based on these findings, we recommend that the use of stand-biased workstations be considered when designing or renovating work office workspaces. The health risks of sedentary behavior are inherent in most office work, but these risks can be alleviated with intentional equipment choices. Using stand-biased desks can encourage workers to move more throughout the workday without their productivity or comfort being disturbed.

Increasing movement during office work at sit-stand workstations: A novel seating device to facilitate transitions

A novel active office chair (Movably Pro) was designed to facilitate frequent sit-stand movement 1) through auditory and tactile prompts and 2) with minimal-to-no work surface adjustment when transitioning. The purpose of this study was to compare lumbopelvic kinematics, discomfort, and task performance between the novel chair and traditional sitting/standing. Sixteen participants completed three separate 2-h sedentary exposures. Although participants transitioned every 3 min between sitting and standing with the novel chair, productivity was not affected. When standing in the novel chair, the lumbopelvic angles fell in between traditional sitting and standing (p < 0.01). Movement and/or postural changes that occurred with the novel chair reduced low back and leg discomfort for pain developers (PDs) (p < 0.01). All participants classified as PDs in traditional standing were non-PDs with the novel chair. This intervention was effective in reducing sedentary time without the time loss associated with desk movement.

Defining the lumbar and trunk-thigh neutral zone from the passive stiffness curve: application to hybrid sit-stand postures and chair design

Minimal data exist on the neutral position for the lumbar spine, trunk, and thighs when adopting a hybrid posture. This study examined sex differences in the neutral zone lumbar stiffness and the lumbar and trunk-thigh angle boundaries of the neutral zone, and determined if the standing lumbar angle fell within the neutral zone. Passive lumbar flexion and extension moment-angle curves were generated for 31 participants (13 M, 18 F), pooled from two datasets, with trunk-thigh angles available for 10 participants. The neutral zone was defined as the low stiffness zone from both the flexion and extension curves. Males demonstrated significantly greater extensor stiffness. Neutral lumbar and trunk-thigh angles ranged on average -22.2 to 0.2° and 124.2 to 159.6° for males and -17.8 to -1.3° and 143.2 to 159.5° for females, respectively. Standing lumbar angles fell outside the neutral zone for 44% of participants. These neutral zone boundaries may inform kinematics for hybrid chair designs.Practitioner summary: Adoption of a neutral spinal posture may be achieved through hybrid chair design, yet minimal data exists on a physiologically defined neutral zone. Using measures of in vivo lumbar stiffness, the lumbar and trunk-thigh angular boundaries of the neutral zone were defined for both males and females.Abbreviations: EMG: electromyography; MVC: maximal voluntary contraction.

Shared Autonomy to Reduce Sedentary Behavior Among Sit-Stand Desk Users in the United States and India: Web-Based Study

BACKGROUND

Fitness technologies such as wearables and sit-stand desks are increasingly being used to fight sedentary lifestyles by encouraging physical activity. However, adherence to such technologies decreases over time because of apathy and increased dismissal of behavioral nudges.

OBJECTIVE

To address this problem, we introduced shared autonomy in the context of sit-stand desks, where user input is integrated with robot autonomy to control the desk and reduce sedentary behavior and investigated user reactions and preferences for levels of automation with a sit-stand desk. As demographics affect user acceptance of robotic technology, we also studied how perceptions of nonvolitional behavior change differ across cultures (United States and India), sex, familiarity, dispositional factors, and health priming messages.

METHODS

We conducted a web-based vignette study in the United States and India where a total of 279 participants watched video vignettes of a person interacting with sit-stand desks of various levels of automation and answered questions about their perceptions of the desks such as ranking of the different levels of automation.

RESULTS

Participants generally preferred either manual or semiautonomous desks over the fully autonomous option (P<.001). However, participants in India were generally more amenable to the idea of nonvolitional interventions from the desk than participants in the United States (P<.001). Male participants had a stronger desire for having control over the desk than female participants (P=.01). Participants who were more familiar with sit-stand desks were more likely to adopt autonomous sit-stand desks (P=.001). No effects of health priming messages were observed. We estimated the projected health outcome by combining ranking data and hazard ratios from previous work and found that the semiautonomous desk led to the highest projected health outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the shared autonomy desk is the optimal level of automation in terms of both user preferences and estimated projected health outcomes. Demographics such as culture and sex had significant effects on how receptive users were to autonomous intervention. As familiarity improves the likelihood of adoption, we propose a gradual behavior change intervention to increase acceptance and adherence, especially for populations with a high desire for control.

Development of Modular and Adaptive Laboratory Set-Up for Neuroergonomic and Human-Robot Interaction Research

The industry increasingly insists on academic cooperation to solve the identified problems such as workers' performance, wellbeing, job satisfaction, and injuries. It causes an unsafe and unpleasant working environment that directly impacts the quality of the product, workers' productivity, and effectiveness. This study aimed to give a specialized solution for tests and explore possible solutions to the given problem in neuroergonomics and human–robot interaction. The designed modular and adaptive laboratory model of the industrial assembly workstation represents the laboratory infrastructure for conducting advanced research in the field of ergonomics, neuroergonomics, and human–robot interaction. It meets the operator's anatomical, anthropometric, physiological, and biomechanical characteristics. Comparing standard, ergonomic, guided, and collaborative work will be possible based on workstation construction and integrated elements. These possibilities allow the industry to try, analyze, and get answers for an identified problem, the condition, habits, and behavior of operators in the workplace. The set-up includes a workstation with an industry work chair, a Poka–Yoke system, adequate lighting, an audio 5.0 system, containers with parts and tools, EEG devices (a cap and smartfones), an EMG device, touchscreen PC screen, and collaborative robot. The first phase of the neuroergonomic study was performed according to the most common industry tasks defined as manual, monotonous, and repetitive activities. Participants have a task to assemble the developed prototype model of an industrial product using prepared parts and elements, and instructed by the installed touchscreen PC. In the beginning, the participant gets all the necessary information about the experiment and gets 15 min of practice. After the introductory part, the EEG device is mounted and prepared for recording. The experiment starts with relaxing music for 5 min. The whole experiment lasts two sessions per 60 min each, with a 15 min break between the sessions. Based on the first experiments, it is possible to develop, construct, and conduct complex experiments for industrial purposes to improve the physical, cognitive, and organizational aspects and increase workers' productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness. It has highlighted the possibility of applying modular and adaptive ergonomic research laboratory experimental set-up to transform standard workplaces into the workplaces of the future.

Office-workers maintain decreased workplace sitting time long-term following participation in a sit-stand desk intervention study

Previous studies report decreased workplace sitting time when standing desk interventions are provided to office workers. It is unclear whether decreased sedentary behaviours are maintained long-term. This was a follow-up to a previous intervention study to investigate whether observed sitting time decreases of 30-50% were sustained 12-24 months later. A secondary aim was to compare overall physical activity between office workers with and without standing desks. Although sitting time increased over the follow-up period, this did not reach significance and reductions in workplace sitting remained significantly lower (23.5% decrease) from baseline values. There were no differences in the physical activity measures between workers with and without access to standing desks, although this was a small sample size and further research is needed. Individuals who are motivated to try standing desks at work can benefit through decreased sitting time long-term, however this may not extend to increased overall physical activity levels. Practitioner summary: Providing standing desk options to office-based employees can have long-lasting impacts with reducing sitting time at work. Office workers who choose to stand at work do not appear to compensate with overall activity level reduction outside of work.Abbreviations: LBP: low back pain; OSPAQ: occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire; VAS: visual analog scale; ANOVA: analysis of variance; BMI: body mass index; ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient.

Ergonomics training coupled with new Sit-Stand workstation implementation influences usage

Currently, there is no guidance on the training programme approach that should be provided to new sit-stand workstation users to optimally integrate workstation usage patterns into their working day. The objective of this research study was to determine if a training programme could influence long-term usage of sit-stand workstations. Thirty-five employees from the University of Waterloo volunteered to participate in this longitudinal study. Two different types of training programmes were delivered: (1) an example from industry and (2) based on current literature. There was an influence of training programme on the frequency of sit to stand transitions made each day. Those who received the additional training programme also reported sitting less, standing more and used their sit-stand workstations more consistently day-to-day than those who did not. Practitioner Summary: A longitudinal study was conducted to assess the impact of training programmes on sit-stand workstation usage. A training programme based on current literature resulted in more consistent sit-stand usage than an industry example.

Effect of standing desk use on cognitive performance and physical workload while engaged with high cognitive demand tasks

It is clear that the cognitive resources invested in standing are greater than in sitting, but six of eight previous studies suggested that there is no difference in cognitive performance. This study investigated the effects of sitting and standing workstations on the physical workload and cognitive performance under variable cognitive demand conditions. Fifteen participants visited two times for testing sitting and standing workstations, and were asked to play two difficulty levels of Tetris game for 40 min while kinematic variables, CoP regularity, CoP SD, and cognitive performances were captured every 5 min. Results revealed a more neural posture in standing than in sitting, but using the standing workstation degraded attention and executive function. The CoP SD was 7 times greater in standing, but the CoP regularity was 1/4 in sitting, denoting greater attentional investment while engaged at the standing workstation.

The active workplace study: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial with sedentary workers

OBJECTIVES

Sedentary behavior is pervasive in the workplace and is harmful to health. Research on the effectiveness of comprehensive workplace interventions to reduce sedentary behavior and improve worker health and safety is crucial as sedentary jobs become more common.

METHODS

We developed a Total Worker Health intervention targeting sedentary behavior in call centers, and are evaluating intervention effectiveness in a randomized controlled trial. Four worksites will be randomly assigned to an intervention or control condition. The intervention condition includes the provision of active workstations along with programs and procedures at environmental, organizational, and individual levels. Control worksites will receive active workstations with no additional support, following common organizational practices.

RESULTS

Outcomes include objectively measured physical activity, biological markers of health, and self-report survey data at baseline, after the 6-month intervention or control period, and at a 12-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The aims of the study are to determine whether a Total Worker Health intervention has stronger impacts on workplace sedentary behavior, uninterrupted bouts of sitting, and worker health and safety compared to a usual practice control condition. The study will inform future workplace sedentary behavior intervention and dissemination research, along with organizational best practices for reducing sedentary behavior in the workplace.

Effect of workstation configuration on musculoskeletal discomfort, productivity, postural risks, and perceived fatigue in a sit-stand-walk intervention for computer-based work

OBJECTIVE

Compare musculoskeletal discomfort, productivity, postural risks, and perceived fatigue for a sit-stand-walk intervention between two workstation configurations - one, individually customized for office workers according to ergonomic guidelines (Ergo-Fit); another, self-adjusted by office workers according to their preference (Self-Adjusted).

METHODS

36 participants performed a 60-min computer typing task in both configurations using a within-participants, counterbalanced design. Musculoskeletal discomfort and perceived fatigue were reported through surveys; productivity was operationalized by typing speed and typing error; postural risks were assessed by RULA for seated work, and REBA for standing work.

RESULTS

Musculoskeletal discomfort and perceived fatigue did not vary significantly between configurations. Postural risks for seated and standing work were significantly lower for Ergo-Fit configuration; productivity was significantly higher for Self-Adjusted configuration.

CONCLUSION

Use of Ergo-Fit configuration for a sit-stand-walk intervention can facilitate postural transitions and increase physical activity, while enabling neutral postures in seated and standing work to minimize postural risks.

Increasing standing tolerance in office workers with standing-induced back pain

Sit-stand desks are popular however many people have standing-induced low back pain (LBP). People with LBP have fewer standing weight shifts compared with back-healthy people. Participants were classified as standing-tolerant or intolerant. Participants were provided sit-stand desks for 12 weeks. Participants were assigned to intervention (graded standing exposure and exercise) or control (no instruction) conditions. Participants reported weekly sitting time and average/worst LBP. Standing weight shifts and LBP were re-assessed post-intervention. All groups decreased sitting time (range: 30-50%) over 12 weeks. Sitting time and average LBP were correlated in all standing-intolerant individuals, worst LBP and sitting time were correlated for intervention group only. All standing-intolerant individuals increased standing weight shifts and decreased LBP after 12-weeks. Standing-intolerant individuals benefitted from 12-weeks of sit-stand desk use regardless of intervention. Motivated individuals with standing-induced LBP may increase standing tolerance with sit-stand desk use. Additional benefits may exist when structured guidance is provided. Practitioner summary: Many people are standing-intolerant due to low back pain (LBP). This lab and field-based study showed some benefits from structured approaches to gradually progress standing time when transitioning to standing work. Using a sit-stand desk for 12 weeks resulted in decreased LBP and sitting time in standing-intolerant people. Abbreviations: LBP: low back pain; OSPAQ: Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire; VAS: visual analog scale; GRF: ground reaction force; WeekVASMAX: worst low back pain reported on visual analog scale for prior week; WeekVASAVE: average low back pain reported on visual analog scale for prior week; ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient; LabVASMAX: worst low back pain reported on visual analog scale during lab-based standing; LabVASAVE: average low back pain reported on visual analog scale during lab-based standing; FvR,L: vertical ground reaction force for right and left force plate; BWSSMALL: small (10-29% body weight) body weight shift; BWSLARGE: large (> 30% body weight) body weight shift; ActivPALSED: ActivePAL data for sedentary time; ActivPALSTND: ActivePAL data for standing time; ANOVA: analysis of variance; Standing Intolerant-INT: standing intolerant participants assigned to intervention condition; Standing Intolerant-CON: standing intolerant participants assigned to control condition; Standing Tolerant-INT: standing tolerant participants assigned to intervention condition; Standing Tolerant-CON: standing tolerant participants assigned to control condition; SI: standing intolerant; ST: standing tolerant; INT: intervention; CON: control.

The effect of sit-stand schedules on office work productivity: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Sit-stand workstations have been introduced in the workplaces to address the adverse sedentary effect inherent to typical office jobs. Existing field or laboratory studies showed that standing interventions are not a detriment to work productivity or performance. The effect of gradient standing proportion on these measures is still unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The current naturalistic pilot study aimed to examine the controlled sit-stand ratio effect on office performances.

METHODS

Eleven musculoskeletal symptom free office employees from a large government agency volunteered in this study. They were all equipped with electronic sit-stand desks. Computer usage (N=11) and productivity (N=3) were collected using software and organizational metrics, respectively, for four typical workdays of four different sit-stand ratios (7 : 1, 3 : 1, 2 : 1, and 1 : 1).

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant schedule effects on any computer usage measures. While not significant, time using computer, keystrokes, word count, and keyboard errors were all less as standing time increased. Sit-stand ratio and job productivity did not observe a clear cause and effect relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

The amount of time spent standing in typical office jobs might not affect computer usage and productivity. Further study with a larger sample is needed for a stronger evidence.

Computer-based Prompt's impact on postural variability and sit-stand desk usage behavior; a cluster randomized control trial

Sit-to-stand workstations have been deployed in office environments to reduce sedentary behavior and improve worker's health. However, efforts to initiate and sustain long-term usage of sit-stand workstations has been a challenge, with primarily anecdotal evidence suggesting many employees cease using their sit-stand workstations once the newness diminishes. To objectively determine sit-stand workstation usage and what impact computer-based prompts would have on sit-stand desk use and sustainability, 200 office workers (118 control and 82 treatment) in two different geographic locations were continuously monitored over a 4 ½ month period, which consisted of a 6-week baseline and a 3-month experimental period. During the 3-month experimental period, computer-based prompts elicited a 229% increase in daily standing transitions which was sustained over the entire 3 months with 40% of the participants adhering to a pre-determined sit to stand schedule. These findings indicate that the use of computer-based prompts can be used to motivate employees to change their behavior regarding the use of sit-to-stand workstations.

Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to Breaking Up Sitting Time among Desk-Based Office Workers: A Qualitative Investigation Using the TDF and COM-B

High amounts of sedentary behaviour, such as sitting, can lead to adverse health consequences. Interventions to break up prolonged sitting in the workplace have used active workstations, although few studies have used behaviour change theory. This study aimed to combine the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation to Behaviour system (COM-B) to investigate perceived barriers and facilitators to breaking up sitting in desk-based office workers. Semi-structured interviews with 25 desk-based employees investigated barriers and facilitators to breaking up sitting in the workplace. Seven core inductive themes were identified: ‘Knowledge-deficit sitting behaviour’, ‘Willingness to change’, ‘Tied to the desk’, ‘Organisational support and interpersonal influences’, ‘Competing motivations’, ‘Emotional influences’, and ‘Inadequate cognitive resources for action’. These themes were then deductively mapped to 11 of the 14 TDF domains and five of the six COM-B constructs. Participants believed that high amounts of sitting had adverse consequences but lacked knowledge regarding recommendations and were at times unmotivated to change. Physical and social opportunities were identified as key influences, including organisational support and height-adjustable desks. Future research should identify intervention functions, policy categories and behaviour change techniques to inform tailored interventions to change sitting behaviour of office workers.

Sit-Stand Desk Software Can Now Monitor and Prompt Office Workers to Change Health Behaviors

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of a computer-based intervention designed to increase sit-stand desk usage and help reverse workplace physical inactivity.

BACKGROUND

Sit-stand desks have been successful in reducing workplace sedentary behavior, but the challenge remains for an effective method to increase the usage in order to experience the health and productivity benefits.

METHOD

Data collection (1-year field study with 194 workers) used a novel method of computer software that continuously recorded objective electric sit-stand desk usage, while taking into account the time a worker spends away from their desk (breaks, meetings). During the baseline period, all workers' desk usage was recorded by the software, and the intervention period consisted of software reminders and real-time feedback to all workers to change desk positions. Pooled means were calculated to determine desk usage patterns, and effect sizes and pairwise mean differences were analyzed to test for intervention significance.

RESULTS

The intervention doubled desk usage by increasing ~1 change to ~2 changes per work day. There was a 76% reduction in workers who never used the sit-stand function of the desk. Medium to large effect sizes from the intervention were observed in all three primary outcome measures (desk in sitting/standing position and desk position changes per work day).

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrate an effective intervention that increased postural transitioning and interrupted prolonged inactivity while remaining at the workstation.

APPLICATION

The methods and results in this research study show that we can quantify an increase in desk usage and collect aggregate data continuously.

The effect of sit-stand desks on office worker behavioral and health outcomes: A scoping review

This scoping review examines the effects of sit-stand desks (SSDs) on six domains: behavior (e.g. time sitting and standing), physiological, work performance, psychological, discomfort, and posture. Fifty-three articles met criteria. We determined the percentage of significant results for each domain. Forty-seven studies were experimental trials. Sample sizes ranged from six to 231 participants. Follow-up time-frames ranged from one day to one year. Sixty-one percent of behavioral (24 studies), 37% of physiological (28 studies), 7% of work performance (23 studies), 31% of psychological (11 studies), 43% of discomfort (22 studies), and 18% of posture domain results (4 studies) were significant. We conclude that SSDs effectively change behaviors, but these changes only mildly effect health outcomes. SSDs seem most effective for discomfort and least for productivity. Further study is needed to examine long-term effects, and to determine clinically appropriate dosage and workstation setup.

Feasibility and impact of sit-stand workstations with and without exercise in office workers at risk of low back pain: A pilot comparative effectiveness trial

The aim of this study was to compare the feasibility and impact of sit-stand workstations plus advice, with or without exercise, on back pain and sitting time in office workers at risk of low back pain (LBP). Eligible participants (n = 29/169; 17% overall) were randomized to receive a sit-stand workstation and advice with (n = 16) or without (n = 13) progressive resistance exercise training for 4-weeks. Feasibility (recruitment, acceptability, adherence) and impact (LBP severity during a standardized standing task, workplace-sitting time) were assessed. Intervention acceptability (87.5% very satisfied) was good and adherence (60% completed all 12 exercise sessions) was satisfactory. Maximum LBP severity (mean difference of -1.3 (-2.0, -0.6) and workplace sitting time (82.7-99.3 min/8-hr workday reduction) were similarly reduced in both groups. The introduction of a sit-stand workstation with advice was feasible and achieved similar outcomes for LBP and workplace sitting time when administered with or without exercise.

The effects of introducing electric adjustable height desks in an office setting on workplace physical activity levels: A randomised control field trial

BACKGROUND

Electric adjustable height desks (EAHD) have been promoted as an opportunity for desk based workers to stand at work but there is limited evidence that they have an effect on light physical activity.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective was to determine if there would be a change in light physical activity with the introduction of EAHD. The secondary objective was to assess if there was an associated change in leisure time activity.

METHODS

Activity levels were measured by step counts, self-reported activity levels and pre- and post-trial recall levels. Statistical analysis of the data was performed with the software R. Generalised linear models were fitted to the data. A Poisson regression was used for count data. Statistical hypotheses were deemed significant if their p values were less than 0.05.

RESULTS

There was a significant (p < 0.001) effect on step counts associated with allocation of EAHD and a significant (p < 0.001) increase in self-reported activity for the Intervention (EAHD) group. Having an EAHD was associated with increased activity during leisure (p = 0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

Activity levels, especially light physical activity, were significantly increased with the allocation of an electric adjustable height desk. This pilot study showed that the environmental change of introduction of electric adjustable height desks into an office workplace can increase physical activity and reduce sitting durations. There is limited evidence that the increase in work activity has a positive impact on leisure time activity.

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work

BACKGROUND

A large number of people are employed in sedentary occupations. Physical inactivity and excessive sitting at workplaces have been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and all-cause mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions to reduce sitting at work compared to no intervention or alternative interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, OSH UPDATE, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to 9 August 2017. We also screened reference lists of articles and contacted authors to find more studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over RCTs, cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs), and quasi-RCTs of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or measured using devices such as an accelerometer-inclinometer and duration and number of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more. We considered energy expenditure, total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), time spent standing at work, work productivity and adverse events as secondary outcomes.

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 authors for additional data where required.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 34 studies - including two cross-over RCTs, 17 RCTs, seven cluster-RCTs, and eight controlled before-and-after studies - with a total of 3,397 participants, all from high-income countries. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (16 studies), workplace policy changes (four studies), information and counselling (11 studies), and multi-component interventions (four studies). One study included both physical workplace changes and information and counselling components. We did not find any studies that specifically investigated the effects of standing meetings or walking meetings on sitting time.Physical workplace changesInterventions using sit-stand desks, either alone or in combination with information and counselling, reduced sitting time at work on average by 100 minutes per workday at short-term follow-up (up to three months) compared to sit-desks (95% confidence interval (CI) -116 to -84, 10 studies, low-quality evidence). The pooled effect of two studies showed sit-stand desks reduced sitting time at medium-term follow-up (3 to 12 months) by an average of 57 minutes per day (95% CI -99 to -15) compared to sit-desks. Total sitting time (including sitting at and outside work) also decreased with sit-stand desks compared to sit-desks (mean difference (MD) -82 minutes/day, 95% CI -124 to -39, two studies) as did the duration of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -53 minutes/day, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies, very low-quality evidence).We found no significant difference between the effects of standing desks and sit-stand desks on reducing sitting at work. Active workstations, such as treadmill desks or cycling desks, had unclear or inconsistent effects on sitting time.Workplace policy changesWe found no significant effects for implementing walking strategies on workplace sitting time at short-term (MD -15 minutes per day, 95% CI -50 to 19, low-quality evidence, one study) and medium-term (MD -17 minutes/day, 95% CI -61 to 28, one study) follow-up. Short breaks (one to two minutes every half hour) reduced time spent sitting at work on average by 40 minutes per day (95% CI -66 to -15, one study, low-quality evidence) compared to long breaks (two 15-minute breaks per workday) at short-term follow-up.Information and counsellingProviding information, feedback, counselling, or all of these resulted in no significant change in time spent sitting at work at short-term follow-up (MD -19 minutes per day, 95% CI -57 to 19, two studies, low-quality evidence). However, the reduction was significant at medium-term follow-up (MD -28 minutes per day, 95% CI -51 to -5, two studies, low-quality evidence).Computer prompts combined with information resulted in no significant change in sitting time at work at short-term follow-up (MD -14 minutes per day, 95% CI -39 to 10, three studies, low-quality evidence), but at medium-term follow-up they produced a significant reduction (MD -55 minutes per day, 95% CI -96 to -14, one study). Furthermore, computer prompting resulted in a significant decrease in the average number (MD -1.1, 95% CI -1.9 to -0.3, one study) and duration (MD -74 minutes per day, 95% CI -124 to -24, one study) of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more.Computer prompts with instruction to stand reduced sitting at work on average by 14 minutes per day (95% CI 10 to 19, one study) more than computer prompts with instruction to walk at least 100 steps at short-term follow-up.We found no significant reduction in workplace sitting time at medium-term follow-up following mindfulness training (MD -23 minutes per day, 95% CI -63 to 17, one study, low-quality evidence). Similarly a single study reported no change in sitting time at work following provision of highly personalised or contextualised information and less personalised or contextualised information. One study found no significant effects of activity trackers on sitting time at work.Multi-component interventions Combining multiple interventions had significant but heterogeneous effects on sitting time at work (573 participants, three studies, very low-quality evidence) and on time spent in prolonged sitting bouts (two studies, very low-quality evidence) at short-term follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present there is low-quality evidence that the use of sit-stand desks reduce workplace sitting at short-term and medium-term follow-ups. However, there is no evidence on their effects on sitting over longer follow-up periods. Effects of other types of interventions, including workplace policy changes, provision of information and counselling, and multi-component interventions, are mostly inconsistent. The quality of evidence is low to very low for most interventions, mainly because of limitations in study protocols and small sample sizes. There is a need for larger cluster-RCTs with longer-term follow-ups to determine the effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce sitting time at work.

Current and ceased users of sit stand workstations: a qualitative evaluation of ergonomics, safety and health factors within a workplace setting

Background

Many workplaces have implemented sit-stand workstations (SSW), which enable a worker to transition between sitting and standing as they perform their work activities. The factors which determine the initial adoption, sustainability or cessation of use for a SSW, remain largely unexamined. This study investigates the experiences of workers who had previously used or were currently using a SSW.

Methods

The study setting was within an Australian university. Participants who were current or past SSW users, as well as workplace key informants, were interviewed for the study. All interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed. Transcripts were coded by two researchers for concepts and themes regarding uptake and sustainability of SSW. Discussion and validation of themes was undertaken by the team of three researchers.

Results

A total of 24 interviews were conducted. Twenty-two interviews were with ceased and current users (16 current and six ceased users) and two interviews were with workplace key informants. Analysis of the interviews with current and ceased users identified three main themes: Personal considerations for use/sustainability; Posture; and Usability. Analysis of the interviews with key informants identified two themes: Considerations and concerns and Policies and procedures. Little information was provided to workers when first using a SSW. Workers who were able to adopt their working style to the new workstations were able to sustain ongoing use of a SSW. Key informants were concerned that employees believed using a SSW would provide a health benefit in its own right without an understanding of the possible risks that might be associated with use.

Conclusions

Sustainable usage of this type of SSW is achievable, however, it requires some element of adaptation at the individual worker level. Participants spoke about how the use of the SSW in a standing position was typically associated with the time of day, specific task selection and musculoskeletal comfort or fatigue factors. The provision of education to new SSW users with relevant supporting information by a subject matter expert should enable the worker to obtain a more holistic understanding of the safety and health risks and benefits embedded in the use of a SSW.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-6296-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work

BACKGROUND

A large number of people are employed in sedentary occupations. Physical inactivity and excessive sitting at workplaces have been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and all-cause mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions to reduce sitting at work compared to no intervention or alternative interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, OSH UPDATE, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to 9 August 2017. We also screened reference lists of articles and contacted authors to find more studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over RCTs, cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs), and quasi-RCTs of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or measured using devices such as an accelerometer-inclinometer and duration and number of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more. We considered energy expenditure, total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), time spent standing at work, work productivity and adverse events as secondary outcomes.

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 authors for additional data where required.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 34 studies - including two cross-over RCTs, 17 RCTs, seven cluster-RCTs, and eight controlled before-and-after studies - with a total of 3,397 participants, all from high-income countries. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (16 studies), workplace policy changes (four studies), information and counselling (11 studies), and multi-component interventions (four studies). One study included both physical workplace changes and information and counselling components. We did not find any studies that specifically investigated the effects of standing meetings or walking meetings on sitting time.Physical workplace changesInterventions using sit-stand desks, either alone or in combination with information and counselling, reduced sitting time at work on average by 100 minutes per workday at short-term follow-up (up to three months) compared to sit-desks (95% confidence interval (CI) -116 to -84, 10 studies, low-quality evidence). The pooled effect of two studies showed sit-stand desks reduced sitting time at medium-term follow-up (3 to 12 months) by an average of 57 minutes per day (95% CI -99 to -15) compared to sit-desks. Total sitting time (including sitting at and outside work) also decreased with sit-stand desks compared to sit-desks (mean difference (MD) -82 minutes/day, 95% CI -124 to -39, two studies) as did the duration of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -53 minutes/day, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies, very low-quality evidence).We found no significant difference between the effects of standing desks and sit-stand desks on reducing sitting at work. Active workstations, such as treadmill desks or cycling desks, had unclear or inconsistent effects on sitting time.Workplace policy changesWe found no significant effects for implementing walking strategies on workplace sitting time at short-term (MD -15 minutes per day, 95% CI -50 to 19, low-quality evidence, one study) and medium-term (MD -17 minutes/day, 95% CI -61 to 28, one study) follow-up. Short breaks (one to two minutes every half hour) reduced time spent sitting at work on average by 40 minutes per day (95% CI -66 to -15, one study, low-quality evidence) compared to long breaks (two 15-minute breaks per workday) at short-term follow-up.Information and counsellingProviding information, feedback, counselling, or all of these resulted in no significant change in time spent sitting at work at short-term follow-up (MD -19 minutes per day, 95% CI -57 to 19, two studies, low-quality evidence). However, the reduction was significant at medium-term follow-up (MD -28 minutes per day, 95% CI -51 to -5, two studies, low-quality evidence).Computer prompts combined with information resulted in no significant change in sitting time at work at short-term follow-up (MD -10 minutes per day, 95% CI -45 to 24, two studies, low-quality evidence), but at medium-term follow-up they produced a significant reduction (MD -55 minutes per day, 95% CI -96 to -14, one study). Furthermore, computer prompting resulted in a significant decrease in the average number (MD -1.1, 95% CI -1.9 to -0.3, one study) and duration (MD -74 minutes per day, 95% CI -124 to -24, one study) of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more.Computer prompts with instruction to stand reduced sitting at work on average by 14 minutes per day (95% CI 10 to 19, one study) more than computer prompts with instruction to walk at least 100 steps at short-term follow-up.We found no significant reduction in workplace sitting time at medium-term follow-up following mindfulness training (MD -23 minutes per day, 95% CI -63 to 17, one study, low-quality evidence). Similarly a single study reported no change in sitting time at work following provision of highly personalised or contextualised information and less personalised or contextualised information. One study found no significant effects of activity trackers on sitting time at work.Multi-component interventions Combining multiple interventions had significant but heterogeneous effects on sitting time at work (573 participants, three studies, very low-quality evidence) and on time spent in prolonged sitting bouts (two studies, very low-quality evidence) at short-term follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present there is low-quality evidence that the use of sit-stand desks reduce workplace sitting at short-term and medium-term follow-ups. However, there is no evidence on their effects on sitting over longer follow-up periods. Effects of other types of interventions, including workplace policy changes, provision of information and counselling, and multi-component interventions, are mostly inconsistent. The quality of evidence is low to very low for most interventions, mainly because of limitations in study protocols and small sample sizes. There is a need for larger cluster-RCTs with longer-term follow-ups to determine the effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce sitting time at work.

Common Perceived Barriers and Facilitators for Reducing Sedentary Behaviour among Office Workers

Qualitative studies identified barriers and facilitators associated with work-related sedentary behaviour. The objective of this study was to determine common perceived barriers and facilitators among office workers, assess subgroup differences, and describe sedentary behaviour. From two Swedish companies, 547 office workers (41 years (IQR = 35–48), 65% women, 66% highly educated) completed questionnaires on perceived barriers and facilitators, for which subgroup differences in age, gender, education, and workplace sedentary behaviour were assessed. Sedentary behaviour was measured using inclinometers (n = 311). The most frequently reported barrier was sitting is a habit (67%), which was reported more among women than men (Χ² = 5.14, p = 0.03) and more among highly sedentary office workers (Χ² = 9.26, p < 0.01). The two other most reported barriers were that standing is uncomfortable (29%) and standing is tiring (24%). Facilitators with the most support were the introduction of either standing- or walking-meetings (respectively 33% and 29%) and more possibilities or reminders for breaks (31%). The proportion spent sedentary was 64% at the workplace, 61% on working days, and 57% on non-working days. This study provides a detailed understanding of office workers’ ideas about sitting and means to reduce sitting. We advise to include the supported facilitators and individualized support in interventions to work towards more effective strategies to reduce sedentary behaviour.

Stand Up to Work: assessing the health impact of adjustable workstations

Purpose

Sedentary behavior is linked to health risks, and prolonged sitting is prevalent among office workers. Adjustable workstations (AWS) promote health by allowing transitions between sitting and standing. Stand Up to Work compares workers with AWS to traditional desks (TD). The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Design/methodology/approach

Employees were randomly selected from one office floor to receive AWS, two identical floors maintained TD. Participants received workplace wellness and ergonomic training, completed self-administered questionnaires, and responded to repeated micropolling at baseline (T0), 3 (T1), 6 (T2), and 12 (T3) months in Atlanta, 2015-2016. Groups were compared using two-sample t-tests and nonparametric Wilcoxon tests.

Findings

Compared to TD (n = 24), participants with AWS (n = 24) reported significantly less sedentary behavior at T1 and T2 after AWS installation (p<0.05), with a retention rate at T2 of 80 and 65 percent for the AWS and TD group, respectively. In all, 47 percent of participants with AWS reported decline in upper back, shoulder, and neck discomfort (p=0.04); 88 percent of AWS participants reported convenience to use, 65 percent reported increased productivity, and 65 percent reported positive impact outside the workplace. Individuals with normal or underweight body mass index (BMI) reported a significantly greater decline in percent of time sitting compared to participants with overweight or obese BMI at all three time points.

Originality/value

AWS are beneficial in reducing sedentary behavior in and outside the workplace. Behavioral changes were sustained over time and associated with less self-reported muscle pain, more self-reported energy, and awareness of standing. When considering total worker health, employers should include options for AWS to promote reducing sedentary behavior.

Sit-stand workstations and impact on low back discomfort: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sit-stand workstations are proposed solutions to reduce sedentary time at work. Numerous companies are using them to mitigate health concerns such as musculoskeletal discomfort.

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature on sit-stand workstations and low back discomfort.

METHOD

We conducted a meta-analysis on literature published before 17 November 2016 that addressed the relationship between sit-stand workstations and musculoskeletal discomfort, focusing on the low back.

RESULTS

Twelve articles were identified and eight that presented results in means (SD) were included. Among a pain-free population, the standardised mean difference was -0.230 for low back discomfort with use of sit-stand workstations. When applying the SMD to studies using the 10-point pain scale, the effect estimates ranged between -0.30 and -0.51.

CONCLUSION

sit-stand workstations may reduce low back pain among workers. Further research is needed to help quantify dosage parameters and other health outcomes. Practitioner Summary: In a sedentary population, changing posture may reduce the chance of developing low back pain. The literature lacks studies on specific populations such as those who have pre-existing low back pain and also does not adequately address the dosage of sit-stand time required to help reduce pain.

Usage of Sit-Stand Workstations and Associations Between Work and Nonwork Sitting Time: An Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

No studies have objectively measured habitual usage of sit-stand workstations.

METHODS

Eighteen full-time office workers participated (47.9 ± 9.2 years, 61% female). Sitting time was objectively measured (activPAL, 24 h/7 days), and time at desk, desk position, and perceptions of desk use were self-reported.

RESULTS

Participants sat for 39% of their daily workstation time, and changed workstation position twice daily. The most common reasons for standing included back pain (44%) and tiredness (22%). The majority of participants received no workstation occupational health (72%) or educational (61%) information. Workstation standing time had a significant moderate correlation with total daily standing time (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Office workers with sit-stand workstations rarely change desk position, and there is no relationship between the time spent sitting at the workstation, and total daily sitting time. Education about the workstations was limited.

Fitbit Activity Trackers Interrupt Workplace Sedentary Behavior: A New Application

This study investigated whether Fitbit devices can reduce sedentary behavior among employees in the workplace. Participants were asked to wear Fitbits during 8-hour work shifts, 5 days per week, for 8 weeks. They were instructed to stand at least once every 30 minutes throughout the workday. The goal of the study was to determine whether standing once every 30 minutes was a feasible strategy for reducing sedentary workplace behavior. On average, participants completed 36 of 40 workdays using Fitbits. The number of times participants stood during an 8-hour workday averaged 12 stands per day (maximum 16 stands per day). These results indicate that Fitbit technology is effective for recording and tracking interruptions in sitting time; however, to reduce sitting behavior, alternate approaches are required to motivate larger numbers of workers to participate.

I'm still standing: A longitudinal study on the effect of a default nudge

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the effect of a default nudge to reduce sedentary behaviour at work over time.

DESIGN AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A field study was conducted at a governmental organisation. In the present study, the default setting of sit-stand desks (SSDs) was changed from sitting to standing height during a two-week intervention. Stand-up working rates were calculated based on observations that were done prior to, during, two weeks after and two months after the intervention. Additionally, a pre-measure survey (n = 606) and post-measure survey (n = 354) were completed. Intention and social norms concerning stand-up working were compared for the 183 employees who completed both pre- and post-assessments (45.4% female, M_age = 44.21).

RESULTS

Stand-up working rates raised from 1.82% in the baseline to 13.13% during the intervention. After the nudge was removed the percentage was 10.01% after two weeks and 7.78% after two months. A multilevel analysis indicated a significant increase in both intention and social norms after the nudge intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that a default nudge can increase stand-up working rates in offices with SSDs at least until two months after the nudge intervention.

The potential of bike desks to reduce sedentary time in the office: a mixed-method study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the use of bike desks in an office setting and office workers' experiences of bike desks.

STUDY DESIGN

Mixed-method study; quantitative data of cycling desk use in combination with qualitative data of users' experience were obtained via questionnaires.

METHODS

Bike desks were provided in an office setting during a five-month period. The amount of cycled time, distance and the cycling intensity were registered. At the end of the intervention period, participants filled out a questionnaire about their experiences of cycling desks in the office.

RESULTS

Participants cycled for approximately 98 min/week. Most participants were very positive about their bike desk experience and almost all of them would continue using them. About one third of the participants experienced a positive effect on attention and work performance and for about two thirds it positively influenced their motivation during work. Furthermore, about half of the participants felt more energetic, more self-confident and perceived a positive effect on their health and lifestyle.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing bike desks in an office reduces office workers sedentary time. Furthermore, people experienced positive effects on several personal and work-related parameters. Therefore, providing bike desks in office settings seems to be a promising means to reduce sedentary time.

Implications of sit-stand and active workstations to counteract the adverse effects of sedentary work: A comprehensive review

BACKGROUND

Sedentary work is associated with many adverse health outcomes, and sit-stand workstations in offices have emerged as a way to counteract sedentary work.

OBJECTIVE

This paper reviews the existing knowledge on sit-stand workstations, treadmill workstations and bicycle workstations.

METHODS

The inclusion/exclusion criteria were: 1) empirical research examining the effectiveness of sit-stand workstations in lab or field studies, 2) working adult population, 3) sit-stand workstation interventions where workers performed the same task from a seated or standing position, 4) outcomes measures of discomfort (comfort), performance, sit-stand behaviors, user satisfaction, kinematic and physiological measures. Search terms were: sit-stand, treadmill, bicycle, workstations, sedentary behavior, office ergonomics, and comfort.

RESULTS

Many studies considered productivity, comfort and physiological measures as important outcomes to assess the efficacy of sit-stand workstations and the experimental design was variable. Preliminary data suggests that some amount of standing during an 8-hour workday could be beneficial without compromising user comfort or productivity; however, there is very little data on the efficacy of treadmill and bicycle workstations.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these preliminary data from 26 studies, conducting large scale randomized controlled trials with ergonomic training as their essential component is recommended to understand the benefits of sit-stand workstations for prevention of sedentary work.

A comparison of trunk biomechanics, musculoskeletal discomfort and productivity during simulated sit-stand office work

Sedentary office work has been shown to cause low back discomfort and potentially cause injury. Prolonged standing work has been shown to cause discomfort. The implementation of a sit-stand paradigm is hypothesised to mitigate discomfort and prevent injury induced by prolonged exposure to each posture in isolation. This study explored the potential of sit-stand to reduce discomfort and prevent injury, without adversely affecting productivity. Twenty-four participants performed simulated office work in three different conditions: sitting, standing and sit-stand. Variables measured included: perceived discomfort, L4-L5 joint loading and typing/mousing productivity. Working in a sit-stand paradigm was found to have the potential to reduce discomfort when compared to working in a sitting or standing only configuration. Sit-stand was found to be associated with reduced lumbar flexion during sitting compared to sitting only. Increasing lumbar flexion during prolonged sitting is a known injury mechanism. Therefore, sit-stand exhibited a potentially beneficial response of reduced lumbar flexion that could have the potential to prevent injury. Sit-stand had no significant effect on productivity. Practitioner Summary: This study has contributed foundational elements to guide usage recommendations for sit-stand workstations. The sit-stand paradigm can reduce discomfort; however, working in a sit-stand ratio of 15:5 min may not be the most effective ratio. More frequent posture switches may be necessary to realise the full benefit of sit-stand.

Evaluating the low back biomechanics of three different office workstations: Seated, standing, and perching

The objective of this study was to evaluate how different workstations may influence physical behavior in office work through motion and how that may affect spinal loads and discomfort. Twenty subjects performed a typing task in three different workstations (seated, standing, and perching) for one hour each. Measures of postural transitions, spinal loads, discomfort, and task performance were assessed in order to understand the effects of workstation interaction over time. Results indicated that standing had the most amount of motion (6-8 shifts/min), followed by perching (3-7 shifts/min), and then seating (<1 shift/min). Standing had the highest reports of discomfort and seating the least. However, spinal loads were highest in A/P shear during standing (190N posterior shear, 407N anterior shear) compared to perching (65N posterior shear, 288N anterior shear) and seating (106N posterior shear, 287 anterior shear). These loads are below the risk threshold for shear, but may still elicit a cumulative response. Perching may induce motion through supported mobility in the perching stool, whereas standing motion may be due to postural discomfort. Office workstation designs incorporating supported movement may represent a reasonable trade-off in the costs-benefits between seating and standing.

Impact of sit-stand desks at work on energy expenditure and sedentary time: protocol for a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Prolonged sitting, an independent risk factor for disease development and premature mortality, is increasing in prevalence in high- and middle-income countries, with no signs of abating. Adults in such countries spend the largest proportion of their day in sedentary behaviour, most of which is accumulated at work. One promising method for reducing workplace sitting is the use of sit-stand desks. However, key uncertainties remain about this intervention, related to the quality of existing studies and a lack of focus on key outcomes, including energy expenditure. We are planning a randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of sit-stand desks at work on energy expenditure and sitting time in the short and longer term. To reduce the uncertainties related to the design of this trial, we propose a preliminary study to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the recruitment, allocation, measurement, retention and intervention procedures.

METHODS

Five hundred office-based employees from two companies in Cambridge, UK, will complete a survey to assess their interest in participating in a trial on the use of sit-stand desks at work. The workspaces of 100 of those interested in participating will be assessed for sit-stand desk installation suitability, and 20 participants will be randomised to either the use of sit-stand desks at work for 3 months or a waiting list control group. Energy expenditure and sitting time, measured via Actiheart and activPAL monitors, respectively, as well as cardio-metabolic and anthropometric outcomes and other outcomes relating to health and work performance, will be assessed in 10 randomly selected participants. All participants will also be interviewed about their experience of using the desks and participating in the study.

DISCUSSION

The findings are expected to inform the design of a trial assessing the impact of sit-stand desks at work on short and longer term workplace sitting, taking into account their impact on energy expenditure and the extent to which their use has compensation effects outside the workplace. The findings from such a trial are expected to inform discussions regarding the potential of sit-stand desks at work to alleviate the harm to cardio-metabolic health arising from prolonged sitting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN44827407.

'The End of Sitting': An Empirical Study on Working in an Office of the Future

BACKGROUND

Inspired by recent findings that prolonged sitting has detrimental health effects, Rietveld Architecture Art Affordances (RAAAF) and visual artist Barbara Visser designed a working environment without chairs and desks. This environment, which they called The End of Sitting, is a sculpture whose surfaces afford working in several non-sitting postures (e.g. lying, standing, leaning).

OBJECTIVE

In the present study, it was tested how people use and experience The End of Sitting. Eighteen participants were to work in this environment and in a conventional office with chairs and desks, and the participants' activities, postures, and locations in each working environment were monitored. In addition, participants' experiences with working in the offices were measured with a questionnaire.

RESULTS

It was found that 83 % of participants worked in more than one non-sitting posture in The End of Sitting. All these participants also changed location in this working environment. On the other hand, in the conventional office all but one participant sat on a chair at a desk during the entire work session. On average, participants reported that The End of Sitting supported their well-being more than the conventional office. Participants also felt more energetic after working in The End of Sitting. No differences between the working environments were found in reported concentration levels and satisfaction with the created product.

CONCLUSION

The End of Sitting is a potential alternative working environment that deserves to be examined in more detail.

Effects of a dynamic chair on pelvic mobility, fatigue, and work efficiency during work performed while sitting: a comparison of dynamic sitting and static sitting

[Purpose] Working while sitting for long periods can cause lumbar pain, fatigue, and reduced work efficiency. How a dynamic chair with a seat that moves three-dimensionally affects pelvic mobility before and after work, work efficiency, and post-work fatigue were examined. [Subjects and Methods] Subjects were 17 healthy adults (10 males, 7 females, mean age 21.8 ± 2.7 years). Subjects performed a 30-min Kraepelin test under two conditions: sitting in a standard office chair and sitting in a dynamic sitting balance chair. Root mean square (RMS) values of pelvic movement measured by a triaxial accelerometer during 30 minutes of work, finger-floor distance before and after work, lumbar fatigue, and pelvic movement RMS values during finger-floor distance measurement were used as outcome measures. [Results] Pelvic movement RMS values collected every 5 minutes during 30 minutes of work were significantly higher while sitting in the dynamic balance chair. Changes in pelvic movement RMS values during finger-floor distance measurement after work and amount of work performed during 30 minutes were significantly higher and lumbar fatigue was significantly lower for the dynamic balance chair. [Conclusion] Dynamic sitting maintained or increased pelvic flexibility. The dynamic balance chair may effectively help workers work continuously in seated postures with little fatigue.

Perspectives on a 'Sit Less, Move More' Intervention in Australian Emergency Call Centres

Background

Prolonged sitting is associated with increased risk of chronic diseases. Workplace programs that aim to reduce sitting time (sit less) and increase physical activity (move more) have targeted desk-based workers in corporate and university settings with promising results. However, little is known about ‘move more, sit less’ programs for workers in other types of jobs and industries, such as shift workers. This formative research examines the perceptions of a ‘sit less, move more’ program in an Australian Emergency Call Centre that operates 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.

Methods

Participants were employees (N = 39, 72% female, 50% aged 36–55 years) recruited from Emergency Services control centres located in New South Wales, Australia. The ‘sit less, move more’ intervention, consisting of emails, posters and timer lights, was co-designed with the management team and tailored to the control centre environment and work practices, which already included electronic height-adjustable sit-stand workstations for all call centre staff. Participants reported their perceptions and experiences of the intervention in a self-report online questionnaire, and directly to the research team during regular site visits. Questionnaire topics included barriers and facilitators to standing while working, mental wellbeing, effects on work performance, and workplace satisfaction. Field notes and open-ended response data were analysed in an iterative process during and after data collection to identify the main themes.

Results

Whilst participants already had sit-stand workstations, use of the desks in the standing position varied and sometimes were contrary to expectations (e.g, less tired standing than sitting; standing when experiencing high call stress). Participants emphasised the “challenging” and “unrelenting” nature of their work. They reported sleep issues (“always tired”), work stress (“non-stop demands”), and feeling mentally and physically drained due to shift work and length of shifts. Overall, participants liked the initiative but acknowledged that their predominantly sitting habits were entrenched and work demands took precedence.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the low acceptability of a ‘sit less, move more’ program in shift workers in high stress environments like emergency call centres. Work demands take priority and other health concerns, like poor sleep and high stress, may be more salient than the need to sit less and move more during work shifts.

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work

BACKGROUND

Office work has changed considerably over the previous couple of decades and has become sedentary in nature. Physical inactivity at workplaces and particularly increased sitting has been linked to increase in cardiovascular disease, obesity and overall mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of workplace interventions to reduce sitting at work compared to no intervention or alternative interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, OSH UPDATE, PsycINFO, Clinical trials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to 2 June, 2015. We also screened reference lists of articles and contacted authors to find more studies to include.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCTs), and quasi-randomised controlled trials of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) with a concurrent control group. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or objectively measured by means of an accelerometer-inclinometer. We considered energy expenditure, duration and number of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more, work productivity and adverse events as secondary outcomes.

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 authors for additional data where required.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 studies, two cross-over RCTs, 11 RCTs, three cRCTs and four CBAs, with a total of 2180 participants from high income nations. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (nine studies), policy changes (two studies), information and counselling (seven studies) and interventions from multiple categories (two studies). One study had both physical workplace changes and information and counselling components. We did not find any studies that had investigated the effect of periodic breaks or standing or walking meetings. Physical workplace changesA sit-stand desk alone compared to no intervention reduced sitting time at work per workday with between thirty minutes to two hours at short term (up to three months) follow-up (six studies, 218 participants, very low quality evidence). In two studies, sit-stand desks with additional counselling reduced sitting time at work in the same range at short-term follow-up (61 participants, very low quality evidence). One study found a reduction at six months' follow-up of -56 minutes (95% CI -101 to -12, very low quality evidence) compared to no intervention. Also total sitting time at work and outside work decreased with sit-stand desks compared to no intervention (MD -78 minutes, 95% CI -125 to -31, one study) as did the duration of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -52 minutes, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies). This is considerably less than the two to four hours recommended by experts. Sit-stand desks did not have a considerable effect on work performance, musculoskeletal symptoms or sick leave. It remains unclear if standing can repair the harms of sitting because there is hardly any extra energy expenditure.The effects of active workstations were inconsistent. Treadmill desks combined with counselling reduced sitting time at work (MD -29 minutes, 95% CI -55 to -2, one study) compared to no intervention at 12 weeks' follow-up. Pedalling workstations combined with information did not reduce inactive sitting at work considerably (MD -12 minutes, 95% CI -24 to 1, one study) compared to information alone at 16 weeks' follow-up. The quality of evidence was low for active workstations. Policy changesTwo studies with 443 participants provided low quality evidence that walking strategies did not have a considerable effect on workplace sitting time at 10 weeks' (MD -16 minutes, 95% CI -54 to 23) or 21 weeks' (MD -17 minutes, 95% CI -58 to 25) follow-up respectively. Information and counsellingCounselling reduced sitting time at work (MD -28 minutes, 95% CI -52 to -5, two studies, low quality evidence) at medium term (three months to 12 months) follow-up. Mindfulness training did not considerably reduce workplace sitting time (MD -2 minutes, 95% CI -22 to 18) at six months' follow-up and at 12 months' follow-up (MD -16 minutes, 95% CI -45 to 12, one study, low quality evidence). There was no considerable increase in work engagement with counselling.There was an inconsistent effect of computer prompting on sitting time at work. One study found no considerable effect on sitting at work (MD -17 minutes, 95% CI -48 to 14, low quality evidence) at 10 days' follow-up, while another study reported a significant reduction in sitting at work (MD -55 minutes, 95% CI -96 to -14, low quality evidence) at 13 weeks' follow-up. Computer prompts to stand reduced sitting at work by 14 minutes more (95% CI 10 to 19, one study) compared to computer prompts to step at six days' follow-up. Computer prompts did not change the number of sitting episodes that last 30 minutes or longer. Interventions from multiple categories Interventions combining multiple categories had an inconsistent effect on sitting time at work, with a reduction in sitting time at 12 weeks' (25 participants, very low quality evidence) and six months' (294 participants, low quality evidence) follow-up in two studies but no considerable effect at 12 months' follow-up in one study (MD -47.98, 95% CI -103 to 7, 294 participants, low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present there is very low to low quality evidence that sit-stand desks may decrease workplace sitting between thirty minutes to two hours per day without having adverse effects at the short or medium term. There is no evidence on the effects in the long term. There were no considerable or inconsistent effects of other interventions such as changing work organisation or information and counselling. There is a need for cluster-randomised trials with a sufficient sample size and long term follow-up to determine the effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce objectively measured sitting time at work.

Is Standing the Solution to Sedentary Office Work?

There has been a major shift toward office workstations that accommodate standing postures. This shift is attributable to negative health and musculoskeletal issues from sedentary exposures. However, changing exposures from sitting to standing does not eliminate these issues, as evidence indicates prolonged standing also induces problems. Reducing seated exposure and rotating frequently between sitting and standing has been shown to result in positive health outcomes, reduced discomfort, and increased work performance. Implementing sit-stand workstations has promise to mitigate work-related health issues, if the users are provided with training that includes accommodations for individual work patterns and preferences.

Is Sitting Too Much Bad for Your Health?

Office workers spend a large part of their workday sitting down. Too much sitting seems bad for people’s health and puts them at risk for premature death. Workstation alternatives that allow desk work to be done while standing, walking, biking, or stepping reduce the total time spent sitting without affecting work performance much. Moreover, these alternatives seem acceptable to users. Future research is needed to determine long-term effects and whether results apply to different working populations. Ergonomists play an important role in developing recommendations for the setup and use of alternative workstations and in improving their feasibility.

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work

BACKGROUND

The number of people working whilst seated at a desk keeps increasing worldwide. As sitting increases, occupational physical strain declines at the same time. This has contributed to increases in cardiovascular disease, obesity and diabetes. Therefore, reducing and breaking up the time that people spend sitting while at work is important for health.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of workplace interventions to reduce sitting at work compared to no intervention or alternative interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, OSH UPDATE, PsycINFO, Clinical trials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) search trial portal up to 14 February, 2014. We also searched reference lists of articles and contacted authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCTs), and quasi-randomised controlled trials of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) with a concurrent control group. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or objectively measured by means of an accelerometer coupled with an inclinometer. We considered energy expenditure, duration and number of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more, work productivity and adverse events as secondary outcomes.

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 authors for additional data where required.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies, four RCTs, three CBAs and one cRCT, with a total of 1125 participants. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (three studies), policy changes (one study) and information and counselling (four studies). No studies investigated the effect of treadmill desks, stepping devices, periodic breaks or standing or walking meetings. All the studies were at high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was very low to low. Half of the studies were from Australia and the other half from Europe, with none from low- or middle-income countries. Physical workplace changesWe found very low quality evidence that sit-stand desks with or without additional counselling reduced sitting time at work per workday at one week follow-up (MD -143 minutes (95% CI -184 to -102, one study, 31 participants) and at three months' follow-up (MD - 113 minutes, 95% CI -143 to -84, two studies, 61 participants) compared to no intervention. Total sitting time during the whole day decreased also with sit-stand desks compared to no intervention (MD -78 minutes, 95% CI -125 to -30, one study, 31 participants) as did the duration of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -52 minutes, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies, 74 participants). Sit-stand desks did not have a considerable effect on work performance and had an inconsistent effect on musculoskeletal symptoms and sick leave. Policy changesWalking strategies had no considerable effect on sitting at work (MD -16 minutes, 95% CI -54 to 23, one study, 179 participants, low quality evidence). Information and counsellingGuideline-based counselling by occupational physicians reduced sitting time at work (MD -28 minutes, 95% CI -54 to -2, one study, 396 participants, low quality evidence). There was no considerable effect on reduction in total sitting time during the whole day.Mindfulness training induced a non-significant reduction in workplace sitting time (MD -2 minutes, 95% CI -22 to 18) at six months' follow-up and at 12 months' follow-up (MD -16 minutes, 95% CI -45 to 12, one study, 257 participants, low quality evidence).There was an inconsistent effect of computer prompting on sitting time at work. One study found no considerable effect on sitting at work (MD -18 minutes, 95% CI -53 to 17, 28 participants, low quality evidence) at 10 days' follow-up, while another study reported a significant reduction in sitting at work (MD -55 minutes, 95% CI -96 to -14, 34 participants, low quality evidence) at 13 weeks' follow-up. Computer prompting software also led to a non-significant increase in energy expenditure at work (MD 278 calories/workday, 95% CI 0 to 556, one study, 34 participants, low quality evidence) at 13 weeks' follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present there is very low quality evidence that sit-stand desks can reduce sitting time at work, but the effects of policy changes and information and counselling are inconsistent. There is a need for high quality cluster-randomised trials to assess the effects of different types of interventions on objectively measured sitting time. There are many ongoing trials that might change these conclusions in the near future.

A systematic review of standing and treadmill desks in the workplace

OBJECTIVES

Standing and treadmill desks are intended to reduce the amount of time spent sitting in today's otherwise sedentary office. Proponents of these desks suggest that health benefits may be acquired as standing desk use discourages long periods of sitting, which has been identified as an independent health risk factor. Our objectives were thus to analyze the evidence for standing and treadmill desk use in relation to physiological (chronic disease prevention and management) and psychological (worker productivity, well-being) outcomes.

METHODS

A computer-assisted systematic search of Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and EMBASE databases was employed to identify all relevant articles related to standing and treadmill desk use.

RESULTS

Treadmill desks led to the greatest improvement in physiological outcomes including postprandial glucose, HDL cholesterol, and anthropometrics, while standing desk use was associated with few physiological changes. Standing and treadmill desks both showed mixed results for improving psychological well-being with little impact on work performance.

DISCUSSION

Standing and treadmill desks show some utility for breaking up sitting time and potentially improving select components of health. At present; however, there exist substantial evidence gaps to comprehensively evaluate the utility of each type of desk to enhance health benefits by reducing sedentary time.

Postural variability: an effective way to reduce musculoskeletal discomfort in office work

OBJECTIVE

This article investigates whether different interventions aimed at promoting postural change could increase body movement throughout the shift and reduce musculoskeletal discomfort.

BACKGROUND

Many researchers have reported high levels of discomfort for workers that have relatively low-level demands but whose jobs are sedentary in nature. To date, few interventions have been found to be effective in reducing worker discomfort.

METHODS

Thirty-seven call center operators were evaluated in four different workstation conditions: conventional workstation, sit-stand workstation, conventional workstation with reminder software, and sit-stand workstation with break reminder software-prompt to remind workers to take break The primary outcome variables consisted of productivity, measured by custom software; posture changes, measured by continuous video recording; and discomfort, measured by simple survey. Each condition was evaluated over a 2-week period.

RESULTS

Significant reductions in short-term discomfort were reported in the shoulders, upper back, and lower back when utilizing reminder software, independent of workstation type. Although not significant, many productivity indices were found to increase by about 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

Posture-altering workstation interventions, specifically sit-stand tables or reminder software with traditional tables, were effective in introducing posture variability. Further, postural variability appears to be linked to decreased short-term discomfort at the end of the day without a negative impact on productivity.

APPLICATIONS

An intervention that can simply induce the worker to move throughout the day, such as a sit-stand table or simple software reminder about making a large posture change, can be effective in reducing discomfort in the worker, while not adversely impacting productivity.

The effectiveness of sit-stand workstations for changing office workers' sitting time: results from the Stand@Work randomized controlled trial pilot

Background

Prolonged sitting time is detrimental for health. Individuals with desk-based occupations tend to sit a great deal and sit-stand workstations have been identified as a potential strategy to reduce sitting time. Hence, the objective of the current study was to examine the effects of using sit-stand workstations on office workers’ sitting time at work and over the whole day.

Methods

We conducted a randomized controlled trial pilot with crossover design and waiting list control in Sydney, Australia from September 2011 to July 2012 (n = 42; 86% female; mean age 38 ± 11 years). Participants used a sit-stand workstation for four weeks in the intervention condition. In the time-matched control condition, participants received nothing and crossed over to the intervention condition after four weeks. The primary outcomes, sitting, standing and walking time at work, were assessed before and after using the workstations with ActivPALs and self-report questionnaires. Secondary outcomes, domain-specific sitting over the whole day, were assessed by self-report. Linear mixed models estimated changes in outcomes adjusting for measurement time, study grouping and covariates.

Results

Intervention participants significantly reduced objectively assessed time spent sitting at work by 73 min/workday (95% CI: −106,-39) and increased standing time at work by 65 min/workday (95% CI: 47, 83); these changes were significant relative to controls (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively). Total sitting time significantly declined in intervention participants (−80 min/workday; 95% CI: −155, −4).

Conclusions

This study shows that introducing sit-stand workstations in the office can reduce desk-based workers’ sitting time at work in the short term. Larger scale studies on more representative samples are needed to determine the public health impact of sit-stand workstations.

Trial registration

ACTRN12612000072819

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12966-014-0127-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Desk-based workers' perspectives on using sit-stand workstations: a qualitative analysis of the Stand@Work study

Background

Prolonged sitting time has been identified as a health risk factor. Sit-stand workstations allow desk workers to alternate between sitting and standing throughout the working day, but not much is known about their acceptability and feasibility. Hence, the aim of this study was to qualitatively evaluate the acceptability, feasibility and perceptions of using sit-stand workstations in a group of desk-based office workers.

Methods

This article describes the qualitative evaluation of the randomized controlled cross-over Stand@Work pilot trial. Participants were adult employees recruited from a non-government health agency in Sydney, Australia. The intervention involved using an Ergotron Workfit S sit-stand workstation for four weeks. After the four week intervention, participants shared their perceptions and experiences of using the sit-stand workstation in focus group interviews with 4–5 participants. Topics covered in the focus groups included patterns of workstation use, barriers and facilitators to standing while working, effects on work performance, physical impacts, and feasibility in the office. Focus group field notes and transcripts were analysed in an iterative process during and after the data collection period to identify the main concepts and themes.

Results

During nine 45-min focus groups, a total of 42 participants were interviewed. Participants were largely intrinsically motivated to try the sit-stand workstation, mostly because of curiosity to try something new, interest in potential health benefits, and the relevance to the participant’s own and organisation’s work. Most participants used the sit-stand workstation and three common usage patterns were identified: task-based routine, time-based routine, and no particular routine. Common barriers to sit-stand workstation use were working in an open plan office, and issues with sit-stand workstation design. Common facilitators of sit-stand workstation use were a supportive work environment conducive to standing, perceived physical health benefits, and perceived work benefits. When prompted, most participants indicated they were interested in using a sit-stand workstation in the future.

Conclusions

The use of a sit-stand workstation in this group of desk-based office workers was generally perceived as acceptable and feasible. Future studies are needed to explore this in different desk-based work populations and settings.