Impact of a low-cost standing desk on reducing workplace sitting (StandUP UBC): A randomised controlled trial

The effectiveness of a 6-month intervention with sit-stand workstation in office workers: Results from the SUFHA cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Prolonged periods of sitting have been linked to negative health outcomes. Implementation of sit-stand desks in the workplace has been one strategy to reduce prolonged sitting.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of sit-stand workstations on reducing sitting time and improving other health outcomes of office-based workers.

METHODS

39 Portuguese office workers were randomized into a 6-month parallel-group cluster RCT consisting by the implementation of sit-stand desks in the workplace. The primary outcome of sitting time was assessed using ActivPAL. Secondary outcomes included biometric, psychological, and diet-related variables. All outcomes were assessed at baseline and 6 months for the whole sample and at 3 months for a sub-sample of the intervention group (n = 11).

RESULTS

No significant time*group interaction was found for the primary or secondary outcomes, apart from waist circumference favoring the control group (Δ-1.81 cm, pinteraction = 0.04). There were significant changes within the intervention group for sitting time (-44.0 min/day), prolonged sitting (>30 min) (-45.3 min/day) and standing time (51.7 min/day) at 3 months in the sub-sample and in prolonged sitting (>30 min) (-26 min/day) in the full intervention group (p < 0.05). Changes were also observed within the intervention group for percent body fat (Δ-3.7%) and ratings of quality of life (Δ2.2), musculoskeletal discomfort (Δ-4.9), overall fatigue (Δ-2.2), and the need for recovery after work (Δ-1.7) at 6-month follow-up (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Although not being effective for reducing sitting time, the implementation of sit-stand desks in the Portuguese workspace was shown to be feasible over the long term, received well by users, and may offer other health benefits.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

OSF Registration, OSF.IO/JHGPW. Registered 15 November 2022. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JHGPW.

A systematic review of research on sitting and working furniture ergonomic from 2012 to 2022: Analysis of assessment approaches

This study analyses which aspects of sitting and working furniture ergonomics that may be influenced and how they are assessed. To gather information on the types and assessment techniques connected with influencing furniture ergonomics, a systematic review of the literature was conducted. The papers in the systematic review were published between 2012 and 2022. The articles applied the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines to limit the 41 papers that were eventually included (N = 41) to those containing keywords like ergonomics, human factors, comfort, working furniture, Chair, assessment and evaluation. The research objective of this systematic review is to provide a comprehensive overview of sitting and working furniture and the main findings, obtaining common assessment techniques for this type of furniture and their suitability. According to the relevant studies, the publications were categorized by summarizing factors like region, gender, research methods, ergonomic assessment techniques and methods used, correlation between assessment techniques and methods, etc. Summaries of the data extracted from the included papers are provided and the applicability of some approaches are assessed. Only a small number of authors have evaluated the ergonomics of furniture used in homes. One of the research gaps is the paucity of research on gender segregation, secular trends, and cultural contexts. These studies heavily rely on quantitative research techniques, and the articles may lack credibility due to the homogeneity of the evaluation techniques. Finally, the authors offer some suggestions for the appropriate ergonomic analysis of furniture.

A multicomponent intervention to reduce daily sitting time in office workers: the SMART Work & Life three-arm cluster RCT

Background

Office workers spend 70-85% of their time at work sitting. High levels of sitting have been linked to poor physiological and psychological health. Evidence shows the need for fully powered randomised controlled trials, with long-term follow-up, to test the effectiveness of interventions to reduce sitting time.

Objective

Our objective was to test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the SMART Work & Life intervention, delivered with and without a height-adjustable workstation, compared with usual practice at 12-month follow-up.

Design

A three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial.

Setting

Councils in England.

Participants

Office workers.

Intervention

SMART Work & Life is a multicomponent intervention that includes behaviour change strategies, delivered by workplace champions. Clusters were randomised to (1) the SMART Work & Life intervention, (2) the SMART Work & Life intervention with a height-adjustable workstation (i.e. SMART Work & Life plus desk) or (3) a control group (i.e. usual practice). Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 12 months.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was device-assessed daily sitting time compared with usual practice at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included sitting, standing, stepping time, physical activity, adiposity, blood pressure, biochemical measures, musculoskeletal issues, psychosocial variables, work-related health, diet and sleep. Cost-effectiveness and process evaluation data were collected.

Results

A total of 78 clusters (756 participants) were randomised [control, 26 clusters (n = 267); SMART Work & Life only, 27 clusters (n = 249); SMART Work & Life plus desk, 25 clusters (n = 240)]. At 12 months, significant differences between groups were found in daily sitting time, with participants in the SMART Work & Life-only and SMART Work & Life plus desk arms sitting 22.2 minutes per day (97.5% confidence interval -38.8 to -5.7 minutes/day; p = 0.003) and 63.7 minutes per day (97.5% confidence interval -80.0 to -47.4 minutes/day; p < 0.001), respectively, less than the control group. Participants in the SMART Work & Life plus desk arm sat 41.7 minutes per day (95% confidence interval -56.3 to -27.0 minutes/day; p < 0.001) less than participants in the SMART Work & Life-only arm. Sitting time was largely replaced by standing time, and changes in daily behaviour were driven by changes during work hours on workdays. Behaviour changes observed at 12 months were similar to 3 months. At 12 months, small improvements were seen for stress, well-being and vigour in both intervention groups, and for pain in the lower extremity and social norms in the SMART Work & Life plus desk group. Results from the process evaluation supported these findings, with participants reporting feeling more energised, alert, focused and productive. The process evaluation also showed that participants viewed the intervention positively; however, the extent of engagement varied across clusters. The average cost of SMART Work & Life only and SMART Work & Life plus desk was £80.59 and £228.31 per participant, respectively. Within trial, SMART Work & Life only had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,091 per quality-adjusted life-year, with SMART Work & Life plus desk being dominated. Over a lifetime, SMART Work & Life only and SMART Work & Life plus desk had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £4985 and £13,378 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively.

Limitations

The study was carried out in one sector, limiting generalisability.

Conclusions

The SMART Work & Life intervention, provided with and without a height-adjustable workstation, was successful in changing sitting time.

Future work

There is a need for longer-term follow-up, as well as follow-up within different organisations.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11618007.

The effects of active workstations on reducing work-specific sedentary time in office workers: a network meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Active workstations have been proposed as a feasible approach for reducing occupational sedentary time. This study used a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess and compare the overall efficacy of active workstation interventions according to type and concomitant strategy for reducing work-specific sitting time in office workers.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from database inception until May 2022 to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of active workstations with or without concomitant strategies for reducing occupational sedentary time in office workers. The risk of bias of the RCTs included in this study was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook. An NMA with STATA 15.1 was used to construct a network diagram, league figures, and the final surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

A total of 23 eligible studies including eight different types of interventions with 1428 office workers were included. NMA results showed that compared to a typical desk, multicomponent intervention (standardized mean difference (SMD) =  - 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 2.17, - 0.82; SUCRA = 72.4%), sit-stand workstation + promotion (Reminders of rest breaks, posture variation, or incidental office activity) (SMD =  - 1.49; 95%CI - 2.42, - 0.55; SUCRA = 71.0%), treadmill workstation + promotion (SMD =  - 1.29; 95%CI - 2.51, - 0.07; SUCRA = 61.6%), and sit-stand workstation (SMD =  - 1.10, 95%CI - 1.64, - 0.56; SUCRA = 50.2%) were effective in reducing occupational sedentary time for office workers.

CONCLUSIONS

Multicomponent intervention, sit-stand workstation + promotion, treadmill workstation + promotion, and sit-stand workstation appear to be effective in reducing work-specific sedentary time for office workers. Furthermore, multicomponent interventions and active workstations + promotion better reduced work-specific sedentary time than active workstation alone. However, the overall certainty of the evidence was low.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Our study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); registration number: CRD42022344432.

Providing office workers with height-adjustable workstation to reduce and interrupt workplace sitting time: protocol for the Stand Up for Healthy Aging (SUFHA) cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Sedentary behavior (SB) has been linked to several negative health outcomes. Therefore, reducing SB or breaking up prolonged periods of SB improves functional fitness, food consumption, job satisfaction, and productivity. Reducing SB can be achieved by introducing a health-enhancing contextual modification promoted by a sit-stand desk in the workplace. The primary goal will be to test the effectiveness of this intervention in reducing and breaking up SB, while improving health outcomes in office-based workers during a 6-month intervention.

METHODS

A two-arm (1:1), superiority parallel-group cluster RCT will be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention in a sample of office-based workers from a university in Portugal. The intervention will consist of a psychoeducation session, motivational prompts, and contextual modification promoted by a sit-stand desk in the workplace for 6 months. The control group will work as usual in their workplace, with no contextual change or prompts during the 6-month intervention. Three assessment points will be conducted in both groups, pre-intervention (baseline), post-intervention, and a 3-month follow-up. The primary outcomes include sedentary and physical activity-related variables, which will be objectively assessed with 24 h monitoring using the ActivPAL for 7 days. The secondary outcomes include (a) biometric indices as body composition, body mass index, waist circumference, and postural inequalities; and (b) psychosocial variables such as overall and work-related fatigue, overall discomfort, life/work satisfaction, quality of life, and eating behavior. Both the primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed at each assessment point.

DISCUSSION

This study will lean on the use of a sit-stand workstation for 6 months, prompted by an initial psychoeducational session and ongoing motivational prompts. We will aim to contribute to this topic by providing robust data on alternating sitting and standing postures in the workplace.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was prospectively registered, and the details are at: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JHGPW ; Registered 15 November 2022. OSF Preregistration.

Exploring Work-Time Affective States Through Ecological Momentary Assessment in an Office-Based Intervention to Reduce Occupational Sitting

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to examine whether a low-cost standing desk intervention that reduced occupational sitting was associated with changes in work-time cognitive-affective states in real time using ecological momentary assessments at the start and end of the trial.

METHODS

Forty-one office employees (91.7% female, mean age = 39.8 [10.1] y) were randomized to receive a low-cost standing desk or a waitlist control. Participants received 5 surveys each day for 5 workdays via smartphone application prior to randomization and at trial's end. Ecological momentary assessment assessed current work-time psychological states (valence and arousal, stress, fatigue, and perceived productivity). Multilevel models assessed whether changes in work-time outcomes over the course of the intervention were significantly different between treatment groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in outcomes between the groups except for fatigue, with the control group reporting a significant decrease in daily fatigue following the intervention (P < .001). The intervention group reported no significant changes in any of the work-time outcomes across the study period (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

A low-cost standing desk intervention to reduce occupational sedentary behavior did not negatively impact work-time outcomes such as productivity and fatigue in the short term.

Effectiveness of an intervention for reducing sitting time and improving health in office workers: three arm cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention, with and without a height adjustable desk, on daily sitting time, and to investigate the relative effectiveness of the two interventions, and the effectiveness of both interventions on physical behaviours and physical, biochemical, psychological, and work related health and performance outcomes.

DESIGN

Cluster three arm randomised controlled trial with follow-up at three and 12 months.

SETTING

Local government councils in Leicester, Liverpool, and Greater Manchester, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

78 clusters including 756 desk based employees in defined offices, departments, or teams from two councils in Leicester, three in Greater Manchester, and one in Liverpool.

INTERVENTIONS

Clusters were randomised to one of three conditions: the SMART Work and Life (SWAL) intervention, the SWAL intervention with a height adjustable desk (SWAL plus desk), or control (usual practice).

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was daily sitting time, assessed by accelerometry, at 12 month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were accelerometer assessed sitting, prolonged sitting, standing and stepping time, and physical activity calculated over any valid day, work hours, workdays, and non-workdays, self-reported lifestyle behaviours, musculoskeletal problems, cardiometabolic health markers, work related health and performance, fatigue, and psychological measures.

RESULTS

Mean age of participants was 44.7 years, 72.4% (n=547) were women, and 74.9% (n=566) were white. Daily sitting time at 12 months was significantly lower in the intervention groups (SWAL -22.2 min/day, 95% confidence interval -38.8 to -5.7 min/day, P=0.003; SWAL plus desk -63.7 min/day, -80.1 to -47.4 min/day, P<0.001) compared with the control group. The SWAL plus desk intervention was found to be more effective than SWAL at changing sitting time (-41.7 min/day, -56.3 to -27.0 min/day, P<0.001). Favourable differences in sitting and prolonged sitting time at three and 12 month follow-ups for both intervention groups and for standing time for the SWAL plus desk group were observed during work hours and on workdays. Both intervention groups were associated with small improvements in stress, wellbeing, and vigour, and the SWAL plus desk group was associated with improvements in pain in the lower extremity, social norms for sitting and standing at work, and support.

CONCLUSIONS

Both SWAL and SWAL plus desk were associated with a reduction in sitting time, although the addition of a height adjustable desk was found to be threefold more effective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN11618007.

What works to reduce sedentary behavior in the office, and could these intervention components transfer to the home working environment?: A rapid review and transferability appraisal

Background

Working patterns have changed dramatically due to COVID-19, with many workers now spending at least a portion of their working week at home. The office environment was already associated with high levels of sedentary behavior, and there is emerging evidence that working at home further elevates these levels. The aim of this rapid review (PROSPERO CRD42021278539) was to build on existing evidence to identify what works to reduce sedentary behavior in an office environment, and consider whether these could be transferable to support those working at home.

Methods

The results of a systematic search of databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, CINHAL, and SportDiscus from 10 August 2017 to 6 September 2021 were added to the references included in a 2018 Cochrane review of office based sedentary interventions. These references were screened and controlled peer-reviewed English language studies demonstrating a beneficial direction of effect for office-based interventions on sedentary behavior outcomes in healthy adults were included. For each study, two of five authors screened the title and abstract, the full-texts, undertook data extraction, and assessed risk of bias on the included studies. Informed by the Behavior Change Wheel, the most commonly used intervention functions and behavior change techniques were identified from the extracted data. Finally, a sample of common intervention strategies were evaluated by the researchers and stakeholders for potential transferability to the working at home environment.

Results

Twenty-two studies including 29 interventions showing a beneficial direction of effect on sedentary outcomes were included. The most commonly used intervention functions were training (n = 21), environmental restructuring (n = 21), education (n = 15), and enablement (n = 15). Within these the commonly used behavior change techniques were instructions on how to perform the behavior (n = 21), adding objects to the environment (n = 20), and restructuring the physical environment (n = 19). Those strategies with the most promise for transferring to the home environment included education materials, use of role models, incentives, and prompts.

Conclusions

This review has characterized interventions that show a beneficial direction of effect to reduce office sedentary behavior, and identified promising strategies to support workers in the home environment as the world adapts to a new working landscape.Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021278539, identifier CRD42021278539.

Evidence base of economic evaluations of workplace-based interventions reducing occupational sitting time: an integrative review

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence on the economic evaluations of workplace-based interventions that are designed to reduce prolonged periods of occupational sitting.

DESIGN

An integrative review.

DATA SOURCES

The search was conducted in 11 databases, including PubMed, Scopus, PsychINFO, NHS-EED, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ProQuest, Cochrane library, Sportdiscus, Research Paper in Economics (RePeC), the International Health Economic Association (IHEA) and EconLit. The databases were searched for articles published from inception to January 2022. Subsequent citation searches were also conducted in Google Scholar. The items of the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist were used for quality appraisal of the included studies.

RESULTS

This review included five randomised control trails, including 757 office-based workers in high-income countries. The median quality appraisal score based on the CHEC items was 14 points (a range of 9-18). The mean duration of interventions was 33 weeks (a range of 4-52 weeks). Overall, the studies reported economic benefit when implemented to reduce occupational sitting time but no effect on absenteeism. From the societal perspective, the interventions (eg, the use of a sit-stand desk) were cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

The economic impact of workplace interventions implemented to reduce occupational sitting time is evident; however, the existing evidence is limited, which precludes strong conclusions. Cost-effectiveness is not often evaluated in the studies exploring workplace interventions that address occupational sitting time. Workplace interventions are still in the development and testing phase; thus, the challenge for future studies is to include economic evaluation of interventions addressing sedentary behaviour in workplaces.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021226275.

Factors impacting workplace investment in sit-stand workstations from the perspective of purchasing decision-makers

This explanatory sequential mixed-method study explored the factors associated with the investment (or not) in sit-stand workstations (SSWs) and alternative initiatives to reduce prolonged sitting at work from the perspective of furniture purchasing decision-makers in Australian workplaces. Participants (n = 270) from >200 organisations across 19 industry sectors completed an online survey. Seven interviews were conducted in a sub-sample of participants from organisations without SSWs. The majority (80%) of workplaces reported having invested in SSWs. Workplaces without SSWs, opposed to those with SSWs, were more likely to be private (79.6% vs. 43.5%), of small/medium size (70.4% vs. 35.6%) and without a wellness program (57.4% vs. 22.2%) (all p < 0.05). Financial implications were the main reason for not investing in SSWs. Exercise and stretch breaks were alternative initiatives to reducing sedentary behaviour at work. Better evidence on the return on investment is needed to support purchasing decisions on SSWs.

Determining the interactions between postural variability structure and discomfort development using nonlinear analysis techniques during prolonged standing work

PURPOSE

Nonlinear analysis techniques provide a powerful approach to explore dynamics of posture-related time-varying signals. The aim of this study was to investigate the fundamental interactions between postural variability structure and discomfort development during prolonged standing.

METHODS

Twenty participants, with equal distribution for gender and standing work experience (SWE), completed a simulated long-term standing test. Low back and legs discomfort, center of pressure, lumbar curvature, and EMG activity of trunk and leg muscles were monitored. Nonlinear measures including largest lyapunov exponent, multi-scale entropy, and detrended fluctuation analysis were applied to characterize the variability structure (i.e., complexity) in each signal. The size (i.e., amount) of variability was also computed using traditional linear metrics.

RESULTS

With progress of low back and legs discomfort over standing periods, significant lower levels were perceived by the participants having SWE. The amount of variability in all signals (except external oblique EMG activity) were significantly increased with the time progress for all participants. The structure of variability in most signals demonstrated a lower complexity (more regularity) with fractal properties that deviated from 1/f noise. The SWE group showed a higher complexity levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the findings verified variations in structure and amount of the postural variability. However, nonlinear analysis identified postural strategies according to the perceived discomfort in a different way. These results provide supports for future application of nonlinear tools in evaluating standing tasks and related ergonomics interventions as it allows further insight into how discomfort development impact the structure of postural changes.

Efficacy, characteristics, behavioural models and behaviour change strategies, of non-workplace interventions specifically targeting sedentary behaviour; a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials in healthy ambulatory adults

BACKGROUND

Sedentary behaviour (SB) research has grown exponentially but efficacy for interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour is often contaminated by interventions primarily or co-targeting other behaviours and outcomes. The primary aim of this research therefore, was to systematically review the efficacy of interventions specifically targeting sedentary behaviour reduction, as a sole primary outcome, from randomised control trials in healthy ambulatory adults. This research also sought to identify the successful interventions characteristics, behaviour change techniques (BCT's) and underlying theories, and their relation to intervention effectiveness.

METHODS

We followed PRISMA reporting guidelines for this systematic review. Six electronic databases were searched and a grey literature review conducted. Only randomised or cluster randomised controlled trials, from 2000 to 2020, in adult populations with a sole primary outcome of change in sedentary behaviour were included. Data codebooks were developed, data were extracted, and a narrative synthesis and meta-analysis was conducted using mixed methods random effects models.

RESULTS

Of 5589 studies identified, 7 studies met the inclusion criteria. Six studies reported activPAL3 measures of mean daily sitting time, and four reported mean daily standing time, stepping time and number of sedentary breaks. Pooled analysis of weighted mean differences revealed a reduction in mean daily sitting time of -32.4mins CI (-50.3, -14.4), an increase in mean daily standing time of 31.75mins CI (13.7, 49.8), and mean daily stepping time of 9.5mins CI (2.8, 16.3), and an increase in rate of sedentary breaks per day of 3.6 (CI 1.6, 5.6). BCTs used exclusively in two of the three most effective interventions are 'feedback on behaviour' and 'goal setting behaviour' whilst all three most effective interventions included 'instruction on how to perform the behaviour' and 'adding objects to the environment', BCTs which were also used in less effective interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Although limited by small sample sizes and short follow up periods, this review suggests that interventions specifically designed to change sedentary behaviour, reduce overall daily sitting time by half an hour, with an equivalent increase in standing time, in the short to medium term. Effective characteristics and behaviour change strategies are identified for future development of high quality interventions targeting change in sedentary behaviour.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020172457 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020172457.

The impact of standing desks on cardiometabolic and vascular health

Sedentary behavior is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality, independent of physical activity. The biological mechanisms underlying these associations are largely unknown. We hypothesized that obese subjects with sedentary desk jobs, when assigned a sit-stand desk, will reduce daily sedentary time, and show improvement in arterial flow-mediated dilation (FMD), an early indicator of CVD. Overweight and obese subjects without known CVD were recruited at our institution and given an adjustable sit-stand desk at work. Activities were quantified with an accelerometer for 7 days at baseline and during the intervention. FMD of the brachial and superficial femoral arteries, fasting lipids, insulin and glucose labs, and anthropometrics were measured at baseline, and 12 and 24 weeks. Repeated one-way ANOVA tests were used to compare measurements over time. Fifteen participants were enrolled (93% female, mean age 40 ± 5 years, mean body mass index [BMI] 33 ± 5). Mean daily sedentary time at work decreased by 90 minutes from baseline (385 ± 49 minutes) to 12 weeks (297 ± 80 minutes, p = 0.002) and 24 weeks (295 ± 127 minutes, p = 0.015). Femoral FMD increased from baseline (4.9 ± 1.7%) to 12 weeks (6.4 ± 2.3%, p = 0.043) and further to 24 weeks (8.1 ± 3.2%, p = 0.009). Significant improvement in fasting triglycerides and insulin resistance occurred. There was no change in brachial FMD, exercise activity, step counts, weight, or BMI. A significant reduction in sedentary time during working hours was identified with utilization of a sit-stand desk and sustained over 24 weeks. Improvements in FMD, triglycerides, and insulin resistance provide insight into mechanisms of adverse health risks associated with sedentary behavior.

Work-break schedules for preventing musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders in healthy workers

BACKGROUND

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are a group of musculoskeletal disorders that comprise one of the most common disorders related to occupational sick leave worldwide. Musculoskeletal disorders accounted for 21% to 28% of work absenteeism days in 2017/2018 in the Netherlands, Germany and the UK. There are several interventions that may be effective in tackling the high prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among workers, such as physical, cognitive and organisational interventions. In this review, we will focus on work breaks as a measure of primary prevention, which are a type of organisational intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of different work-break schedules for preventing work-related musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders in healthy workers, when compared to conventional or alternate work-break schedules.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to April/May 2019. In addition, we searched references of the included studies and of relevant literature reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of work-break interventions for preventing work-related musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders among workers. The studies were eligible for inclusion when intervening on work-break frequency, duration and/or type, compared to conventional or an alternate work-break intervention. We included only those studies in which the investigated population included healthy, adult workers, who were free of musculoskeletal complaints during study enrolment, without restrictions to sex or occupation. The primary outcomes were newly diagnosed musculoskeletal disorders, self-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue, and productivity or work performance. We considered workload changes as secondary outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts for study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional study data where required. We performed meta-analyses, where possible, and we assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome of each comparison using the five GRADE considerations.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies (373 workers), four parallel RCTs, one cross-over RCT, and one combined parallel plus cross-over RCT. At least 295 of the employees were female and at least 39 male; for the remaining 39 employees, the sex was not specified in the study trial. The studies investigated different work-break frequencies (five studies) and different work-break types (two studies). None of the studies investigated different work-break durations. We judged all studies to have a high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of self-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue was low; the quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of productivity and work performance was very low. The studies were executed in Europe or Northern America, with none from low- to middle-income countries. One study could not be included in the data analyses, because no detailed results have been reported.Changes in the frequency of work breaksThere is low-quality evidence that additional work breaks may not have a considerable effect on musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue, when compared with no additional work breaks (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.08; 95% CI -0.35 to 0.18; three studies; 225 participants). Additional breaks may not have a positive effect on productivity or work performance, when compared with no additional work breaks (SMD -0.07; 95% CI -0.33 to 0.19; three studies; 225 participants; very low-quality evidence).We found low-quality evidence that additional work breaks may not have a considerable effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue (MD 1.80 on a 100-mm VAS scale; 95% CI -41.07 to 64.37; one study; 15 participants), when compared to work breaks as needed (i.e. microbreaks taken at own discretion). There is very low-quality evidence that additional work breaks may have a positive effect on productivity or work performance, when compared to work breaks as needed (MD 542.5 number of words typed per 3-hour recording session; 95% CI 177.22 to 907.78; one study; 15 participants).Additional higher frequency work breaks may not have a considerable effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue (MD 11.65 on a 100-mm VAS scale; 95% CI -41.07 to 64.37; one study; 10 participants; low-quality evidence), when compared to additional lower frequency work breaks. We found very low-quality evidence that additional higher frequency work breaks may not have a considerable effect on productivity or work performance (MD -83.00 number of words typed per 3-hour recording session; 95% CI -305.27 to 139.27; one study; 10 participants), when compared to additional lower frequency work breaks.Changes in the duration of work breaksNo trials were identified that assessed the effect of different durations of work breaks.Changes in the type of work breakWe found low-quality evidence that active breaks may not have a considerable positive effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue (MD -0.17 on a 1-7 NRS scale; 95% CI -0.71 to 0.37; one study; 153 participants), when compared to passive work breaks.Relaxation work breaks may not have a considerable effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue, when compared to physical work breaks (MD 0.20 on a 1-7 NRS scale; 95% CI -0.43 to 0.82; one study; 97 participants; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-quality evidence that different work-break frequencies may have no effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue. For productivity and work performance, evidence was of very low-quality that different work-break frequencies may have a positive effect. For different types of break, there may be no effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue according to low-quality evidence. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of frequency, duration and type of work-break interventions among workers, if possible, with much higher sample sizes than the studies included in the current review. Furthermore, work-break interventions should be reconsidered, taking into account worker populations other than office workers, and taking into account the possibility of combining work-break intervention with other interventions such as ergonomic training or counselling, which may may possibly have an effect on musculoskeletal outcomes and work performance.