More standing and just as productive: Effects of a sit-stand desk intervention on call center workers' sitting, standing, and productivity at work in the Opt to Stand pilot study

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.

Workplace Productivity, Health and Wellbeing: Findings From a Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial of a Workplace Intervention to Reduce Sitting in Office Workers

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility and potential effects of a workplace intervention to reduce and break up sitting.

METHODS

Office workers were randomized in clusters to intervention ( n = 22) or control ( n = 22). The intervention included a height-adjustable workstation, education, computer prompt software, and line manager support. Outcomes included device-measured workplace sitting and ecological momentary assessed workplace productivity. Recruitment, retention, and data completion rates were assessed.

RESULTS

Recruitment ( N = 44), retention (91%), and workplace sitting measurement rates demonstrated study feasibility. At 8 weeks, workplace sitting was 11% lower (95% CI: -20.71, -1.30) in the intervention group compared with control participants. Intervention participants were also more engaged, motivated, and productive while sitting ( P ≤ 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

It was feasible to implement and evaluate this office workplace intervention, with potential benefits on workplace sitting and ecological momentary assessed productivity.

Ukumela impilo randomised trial: preliminary findings of height-adjustable sit-to-stand workstations on health outcomes of South African office workers

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of sedentary behaviour has concurrently risen with multiple cardiometabolic risk markers independent of physical activity levels. Office-based workers accumulate the highest levels of sitting time during occupational times. This study aims to investigate the short-term effects of using height-adjustable sit-to-stand workstations on cardiometabolic risk markers of office-based workers in South Africa.

RESULTS

Sixty-two office-based workers were randomized into intervention (n = 44), and the control group (n = 18). Small improvements were observed in BMI, blood pressure, and cholesterol levels in this cohort.

CONCLUSION

This preliminary investigation confirms that short-term height-adjustable sit-stand interventions are effective in reducing workplace sitting time and selected health outcomes. South Africa has been attributed with the highest burden of obesity in Sub-Saharan Africa, as a result, there is a need to implement long-term workplace intervention to reverse these implications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, PACTR201911656014962 on the 12th of November 2019.

Quantifying the impacts of posture changes on office worker productivity: an exploratory study using effective computer interactions as a real-time indicator

BACKGROUND

Working in a standing posture is considered to improve musculoskeletal comfort and can help enhance office workers' performance in the long term. However, there is a lack of a quantitative, real-time measure that reflects on whether office workers can immediately become more concentrated and work more efficiently when they switch to a standing posture.

METHODS

To tackle this problem, this study proposed that the number of effective computer interactions could be used as a real-time indicator to measure the productivity of office workers whose work is primarily computer-based. Using this metric, we conducted an exploratory study to investigate the correlation between posture and productivity changes at a 10-minute resolution for eight participants.

RESULTS

The study found that when allowed to use sit-stand desks to adjust postures, participants chose to switch to standing posture for about 47 min on average once a day; standing work was most frequent between 2:30 - 4:00 pm, followed by 10:30 - 11:30 am, during which time the number of computer interactions also became higher, showing a significant positive correlation. In addition, participants were approximately 6.5% more productive than when they could only work in a sitting posture.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed that posture changes could have an immediate improvement in productivity.

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.

A multicomponent quasi-experimental ergonomic interventional study: long-term parallel four-groups interventions

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are known as one of the main problems affecting the health of industrial workers and can lead to lost working days, functional disability of workers and wasting the financial resources of an organization. Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluating the effect of ergonomic interventions on reducing MSDs and improving working posture in the in a foundry industry workers.

METHODS

A field multicomponent cross-interventional study was conducted on workers working in a foundry industry. In this study, 117 male workers were divided into 4 groups, including a control group, a group with specialized ergonomics training, a group with workstation intervention, and a group simultaneously undergoing training and workstation intervention. All 4 groups were evaluated during a period of baseline, 6 and 12-months follow- up. The Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaire (CMDQ) and direct observations of working postures by using the Quick Exposure Check (QEC) method were used.

RESULTS

The results showed that the implemented interventions in the shoulder/arm, back and stress level were effective and the difference in the final score was significant among different groups (P-value > 0.05). In addition, the interventions led to a significant decrease in the QEC scores and musculoskeletal symptom scores in the neck, shoulder, lower back, knee, and lower leg regions among different groups (P-value > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The results showed that workstation modification and training and workstation intervention simultaneously had a greater effect on MSDs and improving working posture compared to training alone.

Task type, preference, and occupation affect standing desk utilization in office workers

BACKGROUND

Adjustable height sit-stand desks are becoming the norm in many workplaces. It is not known how task type, worker preference, and occupation impact utilization of the adjustable height feature.

OBJECTIVE

This survey-based study aimed to determine how task type, preference and occupation affect office workers' sitting and standing behaviors at work.

METHODS

Office workers (n = 123) from different occupations completed surveys about actual and preferred positions (sit, stand, either/both) during 39 common tasks from 4 different categories, as well as barriers to use. Each position was analyzed by task type, behavior, and occupation.

RESULTS

There were differences between actual and preferred behavior for each position, with participants sitting more and standing less than preferred across all task categories. There were differences between task categories with participants sitting less for generative and routine, and standing more for communication tasks. The highest rates of either/both responses were for routine tasks. Engineers reported the lowest standing rates, and also indicated standing more than preferred. Information Tech and Engineering had the highest either/both responses. Finance reported the highest sitting rates. Personal, task-based and workplace limitations were cited as barriers to preferred use.

CONCLUSION

Office workers would prefer to stand more at work. Occupation-specific needs and preferences, as well as types of tasks should be considered when providing workplace standing options.

Mechanical work and energy of sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit transitions performed with traditional and dynamic office chair designs

BACKGROUND

Adherence to sit-stand workstation usage has been shown to decrease post-intervention, with the reported reasons related to fatigue, cumbersome workstation adjustments, and focus.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the mechanical work and total energy required to perform transitions from a traditional office chair and a dynamic chair designed specifically for sit-stand workstations. The whole-body, thigh, and shank centre-of-mass (CoM) were evaluated.

METHODS

Fifteen participants (8 male; 7 female) performed three intermittent sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit transitions from the traditional and dynamic chairs. Kinematic data of the trunk, pelvis, and lower extremities were collected using an optoelectronic motion capture system and triaxial accelerometers. The change in total energy and work between the sitting and standing postures were evaluated for each CoM point. Lumbar spine range-of-motion was further assessed between chair conditions.

RESULTS

Chair designs facilitated opposite work and energy responses for a given transition. Transitions performed from the dynamic chair reduced the work and total energy of the whole-body CoM, by ±8.5J and ±214.6J (p < 0.001), respectively. The work and energy of the thigh CoM differed within transitions (p < 0.001), but the positive and negative components were similar between chairs (work =±0.18J, energy =±0.55J). The dynamic chair increased the total energy (±38.3J, p < 0.001) but not the work of the shank CoM (±1.1J, p≥0.347).

CONCLUSION

The required mechanical work and energy of sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit transitions was modified by chair design. These outcomes have the potential to address identified reasons for the disuse of sit-stand workstations.

A scoping review of workplace health promotion interventions for chronic diseases in Australia

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to systematically chart and summarize the literature pertaining to workplace health promotion (WHP) interventions targeting the five main modifiable lifestyle risk factors for chronic disease, including smoking, nutrition, alcohol, physical activity, overweight/obesity (SNAPO) in Australian workers.

METHODS

A scoping review was performed using the framework of Arksey and O'Malley. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SCOPUS were searched to identify peer-reviewed publications that evaluated primary or secondary WHP interventions which targeted one or more modifiable risk factor (SNAPO).

RESULTS

A total of fifty-six articles were included in the review. The findings revealed a heterogeneous nature of WHP intervention design and evaluation. The majority of the interventions focussed on physical activity, with fewer targeting the other four main modifiable risk factors. Health care and white-collar workers were most frequently targeted, with less attention paid to other worker groups. The review also found that many interventions had a duration of three months or less.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant gaps have been identified in relation to the occupational role, risk factors targeted, and intervention length. This review also highlights the need for further research to be conducted to determine the efficacy of interventions to facilitate the development of a framework for WHP interventions to reduce the risk and prevalence of chronic disease.

Feasibility of a theory-based intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour among contact centre staff: the SUH stepped-wedge cluster RCT

Background

Sedentary behaviour is linked to increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal issues and poor mental well-being. Contact (call) centres are associated with higher levels of sedentary behaviour than other office-based workplaces. Stand Up for Health is an adaptive intervention designed to reduce sedentary behaviour in contact centres.

Objectives

The objectives were to test the acceptability and feasibility of implementing the intervention; to assess the feasibility of the study design and methods; to scope the feasibility of a future health economic evaluation; and to consider the impact of COVID-19 on the intervention. All sites received no intervention for between 3 and 12 months after the start of the study, as a waiting list control.

Design

This was a cluster-randomised stepped-wedge feasibility design.

Setting

The trial was set in 11 contact centres across the UK.

Participants

Eleven contact centres and staff.

Intervention

Stand Up for Health involved two workshops with staff in which staff developed activities for their context and culture. Activities ranged from using standing desks to individual goal-setting, group walks and changes to workplace policies and procedures.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was accelerometer-measured sedentary time. The secondary outcomes were subjectively measured sedentary time, overall sedentary behaviour, physical activity, productivity, mental well-being and musculoskeletal health.

Results

Stand Up for Health was implemented in 7 out of 11 centres and was acceptable, feasible and sustainable (objective 1). The COVID-19 pandemic affected the delivery of the intervention, involvement of contact centres, data collection and analysis. Organisational factors were deemed most important to the success of Stand Up for Health but also the most challenging to change. There were also difficulties with the stepped-wedge design, specifically maintaining contact centre interest (objective 2). Feasible methods for estimating cost-efficiency from an NHS and a Personal Social Services perspective were identified, assuming that alternative feasible effectiveness methodology can be applied. Detailed activity-based costing of direct intervention costs was achieved and, therefore, deemed feasible (objective 3). There was significantly more sedentary time spent in the workplace by the centres that received the intervention than those that did not (mean difference 84.06 minutes, 95% confidence interval 4.07 to 164.1 minutes). The other objective outcomes also tended to favour the control group.

Limitations

There were significant issues with the stepped-wedge design, including difficulties in maintaining centre interest and scheduling data collection. Collection of accelerometer data was not feasible during the pandemic.

Conclusions

Stand Up for Health is an adaptive, feasible and sustainable intervention. However, the stepped-wedge study design was not feasible. The effectiveness of Stand Up for Health was not demonstrated and clinically important reductions in sedentary behaviour may not be seen in a larger study. However, it may still be worthwhile conducting an effectiveness study of Stand Up for Health incorporating activities more relevant to hybrid workplaces.

Future work

Future work could include developing hybrid (office and/or home working) activities for Stand Up for Health; undertaking a larger effectiveness study and follow-up economic analysis (subject to its success); and exploring organisational features of contact centres that affect the implementation of interventions such as Stand Up for Health.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN11580369.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 10, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effects of Sedentary Behavior Interventions on Mental Well-Being and Work Performance While Working from Home during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Sedentary behavior negatively impacts mental health, which can decrease employee productivity. Employee mental well-being and work performance may improve with sedentary reduction interventions, especially strategies that include environmental workplace modifications and behavior-changing strategies. However, such interventions have not been examined among employees working remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of the Stand Up Kansas program, 95 sedentary university employees working from home were randomized into one of four intervention arms: height-adjustable desk provision (Desk Only), online sedentary behavior modification program (Program Only), Desk + Program, or Control. The outcomes were measured at a baseline (November 2020) and following the 12-week intervention (February 2021). Employees reported mood (positive and negative affect), stress, fatigue (duration, interference with activities and severity) and work performance (irritability, focus, work satisfaction, non-work satisfaction and productivity) were measured using established self-report instruments. The effect sizes, by comparing the Control arm to the Desk + Program arm, revealed large improvements in mood (positive affect, d = 1.106). Moderate improvements were also seen in fatigue (duration, d = −0.533, and interference with activities, d = −0.648) and several aspects of work performance (focus, d = 0.702, work satisfaction, d = 0.751, and productivity, d = 0.572). Moderate effect sizes were also seen for positive affect (d = 0.566) and fatigue severity (d = 0.577) among the Program Only arm, whereas no noteworthy effect sizes were observed among the Desk Only arm. Combining an online sedentary behavior modification program with height-adjustable desk provisions appeared to positively affect mental well-being and work performance among remote employees.

Workplace Intervention for Reducing Sitting Time in Sedentary Workers: Protocol for a Pilot Study Using the Behavior Change Wheel

The workplace is a major contributor to excessive sitting in office workers. There are a wide array of adverse effects of high volumes of sitting time, including an increased risk of type 2 diabetes and depression. Active workstations can be used in effective interventions to decrease workplace sitting. However, there are a lack of interventions that have been developed using a systematic process that is informed by participant needs and a framework for identifying the most appropriate content for the intervention. Applying these methods could increase adherence and potential effectiveness of the intervention. Therefore, the purpose of this pilot study is to examine the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of a tailored workplace intervention to reduce and break up sitting in office workers that has been developed using the Behavior Change Wheel and the APEASE (Acceptability, Practicability, Effectiveness/cost-effectiveness, Affordability, Safety/side-effects, Equity) criteria. This article reports the protocol for this study that is currently ongoing. Participants will be cluster-randomized (by offices) to control and intervention groups. The evaluation of the intervention includes determining feasibility by assessing participant recruitment, retention and data completion rates. Adherence to the intervention will be assessed based on daily sitting and standing time relative to guidelines provided to participants as part of the intervention. Outcome measures also include productivity measured using Ecological Momentary Assessment, absenteeism, presenteeism, cardiometabolic risk markers, and wellbeing. The findings of this study will inform the effective design and implementation of interventions for reducing and breaking up sitting in office workers.

Different sit:stand time ratios within a 30-minute cycle change perceptions related to musculoskeletal disorders

Regular standing interruptions to sedentary work are recommended, but their dosage is understudied. To measure perception variations associated with different sit:stand ratios, 16 people used six ratios (30:0, 27:3, 24:6, 21:9, 18:12 and 15:15) within 30-min cycles in their normal office environment. At start and end of each workday, study participants recorded their perception of 11 factors on a 10-point scale. Musculoskeletal discomfort in 10 body regions was measured before and after exposure to sit-stand ratios. Overall preferred ratios were recorded. Sit:stand ratio affected all perceived factors, with impact varying. Standing at least 6 min improved results most overall; however, individual perceived factors were least impacted by any of 30:0, 27:3, 24:6 or 21:9. Preferred sit:stand ratios were 15:15, 18:12 and 21:9. Typically, least liked ratios involved briefest standing (30:0, 27:3, 24:6) although two participants least liked 15:15. Understanding these variations contributes to appropriate standing dosage recommendations.

Systematic Review of the Influence of Physical Work Environment on Office Workers' Physical Activity Behavior

BACKGROUND

Many American workers spend over 7 hours a day at work in primarily sedentary office work. Physical activity is a key aspect of optimizing health and preventing disease; yet, 80% of American adults do not meet the recommended guidelines for physical activity. In this systematic review, the relationship between physical work environment and physical activity among office workers was explored.

METHODS

Of the 321 studies screened, 26 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included for evaluation in this systematic review.

RESULTS

Of the 26 studies, four were cross-sectional studies, 14 were quasi-experimental studies, and eight were randomized control trials. Physical activity during the workday was measured using self-report surveys and electromechanical devices such as accelerometers. Physical work environments examined by the studies included different types of desks (n = 16), office arrangements (n = 5), and building design (n = 5). In nine studies, office environments and building work environments designed to promote activity using active design principles such as stairs and flexible workspaces were associated with increased physical activity. Sit-stand desks reduced overall sitting time, but had a minimal effect on physical activity.

CONCLUSION/APPLICATION TO PRACTICE

Offices and buildings designed for activity had the largest impact on physical activity among office workers. To increase physical activity in office workers, focus should be placed on opportunities to increase incidental movement that can increase physical activity throughout the workday. Occupational health nurses should advocate workspace designs that can increase physical activity in workers.

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.

Does working from home work? Experience of working from home and the value of hybrid workplace post-COVID-19

Purpose

This study aims to understand how knowledge workers working from home during COVID-19 changed their views on physical work environments and working-from-home practices.

Design/methodology/approach

This study conducted a survey targeting workers in the USA recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk. A total of 1,651 responses were collected and 648 responses were used for the analysis.

Findings

The perceived work-life balance improved during the pandemic compared to before, while the balance of physical boundaries between the workplace and home decreased. Workplace flexibility, environmental conditions of home offices and organizational supports are positively associated with productivity, satisfaction with working from home and work-life balance during the pandemic.

Research limitations/implications

While the strict traditional view of “showing” up in the office from Monday through Friday is likely on the decline, the hybrid workplace with flexibility can be introduced as some activities are not significantly affected by the work location, either at home-based or corporate offices. The results of this study also highlight the importance of organizations to support productivity and satisfaction in the corporate office as well as home. With the industry collaboration, future research of relatively large sample sizes and study sites, investigating workers’ needs and adapted patterns of use in home-based and corporate offices, will help corporate real estate managers make decisions and provide some level of standardization of spatial efficiency and configurations of corporate offices as well as essential supports for home offices.

Originality/value

The pandemic-enforced working-from-home practices awaken the interdependence between corporate and home environments, how works are done and consequently, the role of the physical workplace. This study built a more in-depth understanding of how workers who were able to continue working from home during COVID-19 changed or not changed their views on physical work environments and working-from-home practices.

Sit Less and Move More-A Multicomponent Intervention With and Without Height-Adjustable Workstations in Contact Center Call Agents: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To pilot a multicomponent intervention to sit less and move more, with (SLAMM+) and without (SLAMM) height-adjustable workstations, in contact center call agents.

METHODS

Agents were individually randomized to SLAMM or SLAMM+ in this 10-month, parallel, open-label, pilot trial. Mixed-methods assessed response, recruitment, retention, attrition and completion rates, adverse effects, trial feasibility and acceptability, preliminary effectiveness on worktime sitting, and described secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The participant recruitment rate, and randomization, data collection, and interventions were mostly acceptable. Refinements to organization recruitment were identified. High staff turnover negatively impacted retention and completion rates. The multicomponent intervention with height-adjustable workstations has potential to reduce sitting time at work.

CONCLUSIONS

The demonstrated findings will help prepare for a future randomized controlled trial designed to assess the effect of the interventions.

Using Co-Production to Develop "Sit Less at Work" Interventions in a Range of Organisations

Prolonged periods of sitting are associated with negative health outcomes, so the increase in sedentary jobs is a public health concern. Evaluation of interventions to reduce workplace sitting have suggested that participatory approaches may be more effective. This paper describes the use of co-production in four diverse organisations. Workshops with staff in each organisation were conducted to develop an organisation-specific strategy. The first workshop involved creative activities to encourage participants to develop innovative suggestions. The second workshop then developed a feasible and acceptable action plan. An ecological approach was used to consider behaviour change determinants at a range of different levels including intrapersonal, interpersonal, organisational, and environmental-level factors. 41 staff volunteered for workshops (seven in a small business, 16 in a charity, 15 in a local authority, and three in a large corporation). Of those, 27 were able to attend the first workshops and 16 were able to attend the second. Whilst there were some similarities across organisations, the smaller organisations developed a more tailored and innovative strategy than large organisations where there were more barriers to change and a more diverse workforce. Co-production resulted in bespoke interventions, tailored for different organisational contexts, maximising their potential feasibility and acceptability.

Does walking improve diagnosis of skin conditions at varying levels of medical expertise?

The use of walking workstations in educational and work settings has been shown to improve cognitive abilities. At the same time, it has been repeatedly shown that medical residents around the world do not meet exercise guidelines, mainly due to a scarcity of available free time. Our study investigates the boundaries of the previously observed phenomenon of improved cognitive performance with physical activity using materials that represent real life tasks. Participants had different level of expertise and involved second year psychology students, medical students, and family medicine residents. We examined the effect of being physically inactive (i.e., sitting) or active (i.e., walking) while diagnosing multiple complex presentations of four skin conditions. We assumed that being physically active, irrespective of the level of expertise, will bolster diagnostic performance. Our findings show, however, that being physically active does not change the performance level of participants with different levels of medical expertise. Implications for medical education and suggestions for further research will be discussed.

The impact of a progressive sit-stand rotation exposure duration on low back posture, muscle activation, and pain development

This study evaluated early and frequent seated breaks from standing work to reduce low back pain (LBP) in known pain developers (PD). Twenty-four participants, classified as either PD or non-PD during a separate 2-hour standing session, performed 124 minutes of standing work with seated breaks at a 3:1 stand-sit ratio with increasing durations from 3:1 minute to 48:16 minutes. Back pain and spine posture measures showed no differences between PD and non-PD. Females had greater left glutaeus medius activation (8.4%MVC) than males (4.5%MVC) and greater glutaeus medius co-contraction. This protocol was successful at reducing LBP in PD to the level of non-PD, with mean pain scores (13 mm) only slightly exceeding the clinical LBP threshold of 10 mm. Early and frequent breaks within the first hour of standing work appear to be an effective solution to reduce the LBP that often occurs at the beginning of standing work. Practicioner Summary: Sit-stand workstations may be an effective solution to reduce static occupational low back postures. This experimental study demonstrated that early and frequent seated breaks from standing work may be an effective solution to reduce tissue aggravation that often occurs within the first 45 minutes of a standing work exposure. Abbreviations: LBP: low back pain; PD: pain developer; NPD: non-pain developer; VAS: visual analog scale; EMG: electromyography; LES: lumbar erector spinae; TES: thoracic erector spinae; GMD: glutaeus medius; IOB: internal oblique; MVC: maximum voluntary contraction; CCI: co-activation coefficient; FDA: functional data analysis.

A prospective, multicenter, post-marketing observational study to measure the quality of life of HCV genotype 1 infected, treatment naïve patients suffering from fatigue and receiving 3D regimen: The HEMATITE study

Aim

Fatigue is the most commonly reported symptom of Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) infected patients and severely impacts their quality of life. The aim of this study was to measure the impact of 3D regimen treatment on the fatigue, daytime physical activity and sleep efficiency of HCV infected patients with fatigue.

Methods

HEMATITE was an observational, prospective, open-label, single-arm, Swiss multi-centric study in mono-infected HCV genotype 1 patients. The 28 week observation period comprised of 4 weeks preparation, 12 weeks treatment and 12 weeks follow-up. Fatigue was assessed using the fatigue severity scale (FSS) questionnaire. Patients with FSS ≥ 4 (clinically significant fatigue) were included. The activity tracker, ActiGraph GT9X Link^®, was used to measure daytime physical activity and sleep efficiency. Outcome analysis was performed on a scaled down intention to treat (sdITT) population, which excluded patients with insufficient tracker data at all study visits and a modified ITT (mITT) population, which consisted of patients with complete tracker data at all study visits.

Results

Forty of 41 patients in the ITT population had a sustained virologic response 12 weeks post-treatment (SVR12). Mean baseline FSS score was 6.0 for the sdITT population and 5.9 for the mITT population and decreased from baseline to 12 weeks post-treatment by 2.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.1, 3.1) for the sdITT (n = 37) population and 2.8 (95% CI: 2.2, 3.4) for the mITT (n = 24) population. Mean daytime physical activity or sleep efficiency did not change considerably over the course of the study.

Conclusion

Measurement by the activity tracker of mean day time physical activity did not show a considerable change from baseline to SVR12 upon treatment with 3D regimen. Nevertheless, a reduction of fatigue as assessed with the validated fatigue severity scale (FSS) was observed, suggesting a causative role of HCV in this extrahepatic manifestation.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:NCT03002818.

Design, rationale and analysis plan for the Stand Up for Health trial in contact centres: a stepped wedge feasibility study

Background

Contact centres are one of the most sedentary workplaces, with employees spending a very high proportion of their working day sitting down. About a quarter of contact centre staff regularly experience musculoskeletal health problems due to high levels of sedentary behaviour, including lower back pain. There have been no previous randomised studies specifically aiming to reduce sedentary behaviour in contact centre staff. To address this gap, the Stand Up for Health (SUH) study aims to test the feasibility and acceptability of a complex theory-based intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour in contact centres.

Methods

The Stand Up for Health study has a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial design, which is a pragmatic design whereby clusters (contact centres) are randomised to time points at which they will begin to receive the intervention. All contact centre staff have the opportunity to experience the intervention. To minimise the resource burden in this feasibility study, data collection is not continuous, but undertaken on a selective number of occasions, so the stepped wedge design is “incomplete”. Eleven contact centres in England and Scotland have been recruited, and the sample size is approximately 27 per centre (270 in total). The statistical analysis will predominantly focus on assessing feasibility, including the calculation of recruitment rates and rates of attrition. Exploratory analysis will be performed to compare objectively measured sedentary time in the workplace (measured using an activPAL™ device) between intervention and control conditions using a linear mixed effects regression model.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first stepped wedge feasibility study conducted in call centres. The rationale and justification of our novel staircase stepped wedge design has been presented, and we hope that by presenting our study design and statistical analysis plan, it will contribute to the literature on stepped wedge trials, and in particular feasibility stepped wedge trials. The findings of the study will also help inform whether this is a suitable design for other settings where data collection is challenging.

Trial registration

The trial has been registered on the ISRCTN database: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11580369

Designing healthy workspaces: results from Australian certified open-plan offices

Purpose

From poor indoor environmental quality conditions to musculoskeletal discomfort, the interior design of workspaces has the potential to negatively affect human health. One of the key responses from industry has been the rise of health-related guidelines, certification and rating tools. Despite the rapid adoption of such tools by the Australian high-end corporate real estate, there is a scarcity of empirical evidence arising from such premises. This study aims to compare results from certified premises against other open-plan offices to understand differences arising from occupants’ satisfaction, perceived productivity and health.

Design/methodology/approach

A total of 1,121 post-occupancy evaluation (POE) surveys conducted in 9 offices were analyzed. All these premises hold a certification from the Green Building Council of Australia and two achieved a WELL rating. The analysis is performed in three parts: comparing WELL-certified (2 cases) and non-WELL certified (7 cases) offices along with comparison with a benchmark of 9,794 POE surveys from the BOSSA database, comparing activity-based working (ABW) (5 cases) and traditional (4 cases) offices along with comparison with BOSSA database and qualitative study of the similar design features in all 9 offices accompanied with an in-depth analysis of the health-related issues that might have occurred because of poor ergonomic design. For the first two parts, several t-tests are performed.

Findings

Highest scores for overall satisfaction, workability, perceived productivity and health were reported on WELL-rated premises. Offices incorporating active design principles outperformed others on workability, satisfaction with work area, collaboration, unwanted interruptions, perceived productivity and health. ABW environments outperformed the traditional offices on spatial comfort, thermal comfort, noise and privacy, personal control, comfort of furnishing, adjustability of the work area and space to collaborate. People using sit–stand workstations reported spending significantly less time seated and female workers were more prone to reporting pain over the past 12 months. The best-performing offices implemented active and biophilic design, prioritized overall ergonomics and different spaces designed to support a variety of work-related activities.

Originality/value

This research conducts a comparison between certified premises against other offices in terms of occupants’ satisfaction, perceived productivity and health. A qualitative analysis is also conducted to investigate personal and physical environmental aspects. The way of working (ABW or traditional), implementation of active design features, self-reported musculoskeletal discomfort and physical activity were also investigated. The study has taken a holistic approach to investigate many health-related physical, environmental and emotional aspects in certified workspaces.

Workplace Sedentary Behavior and Productivity: A Cross-Sectional Study

Reducing sedentary behavior in the workplace has become an important public health priority; however, some employers have expressed concerns regarding the potential for reduced productivity if employees are not seated while at work. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the relationship between workplace sedentary behavior (sitting time) and work productivity among full-time office-based employees, and further to investigate other potential factors associated with productivity. A 19-item online self-report survey was completed by 2068 government employees in Kansas. The survey assessed workplace sedentary behavior, work productivity, job satisfaction, and fatigue. Overall, office workers reported high levels of sedentary time (mean > 78%). The primary results indicated that sitting time was not significantly associated with productivity (β = 0.013, p = 0.519), but job satisfaction and fatigue were positively (β = 0.473, p < 0.001) and negatively (β = −0.047, p = 0.023) associated with productivity, respectively. Furthermore, participants with the highest level of sitting time (>91% of the time) reported lower job satisfaction and greater fatigue as compared with the lowest level of sitting time (<75% of the time). Taken together, these results offer promising support that less sitting time is associated with positive outcomes that do not seem to come at the expense of productivity.

Impact and process evaluation of a co-designed 'Move More, Sit Less' intervention in a public sector workplace

BACKGROUND

High levels of sitting are associated with increased risk of adverse health outcomes, including chronic disease. Extensive sitting at work is common, hence organisations should provide options to employees to reduce prolonged sitting.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and acceptability of a co-designed intervention to increase standing and reduce sitting in a public-sector office.

METHODS

Forty-six adults participated in the quasi-experimental study (30 intervention; 16 control). The intervention involved providing sit-stand desks, prompts, workshops, and information emails to assist behavior change. Participants wore a thigh-mounted Actigraph GT3X+ for five working days and responded to an online questionnaire at baseline (BL), 6 (T1) and 13 weeks (T2) post intervention.

RESULTS

Inclinometer-measured proportion of time standing increased in the intervention group from 14% (baseline) to 28% (T1) and 27% (T2) (67 minutes more standing over an 8-hour workday). Intervention participants reduced sitting time from 79% (BL) to 63% (T1 and T2), (80 minutes less sitting over an 8-hour workday). The control group showed no changes. The program was highly recommended (94%), and perceived to support behavior change (81%).

CONCLUSIONS

This Move More, Sit Less intervention appears to be efficacious and acceptable. Future interventions should be co-designed to ensure culturally appropriate components and higher acceptability.

The effectiveness and complexity of interventions targeting sedentary behaviour across the lifespan: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that sedentary behaviour (SB) is associated with poor health outcomes. SB at any age may have significant consequences for health and well-being and interventions targeting SB are accumulating. Therefore, the need to review the effects of multicomponent, complex interventions that incorporate effective strategies to reduce SB are essential.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted investigating the impact of interventions targeting SB across the lifespan. Six databases were searched and two review authors independently screened studies for eligibility, completed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias and complexity of each of the included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 77 adult studies (n=62, RCTs) and 84 studies (n=62, RCTs) in children were included. The findings demonstrated that interventions in adults when compared to active controls resulted in non-significant reductions in SB, although when compared to inactive controls significant reductions were found in both the short (MD -56.86; 95%CI -74.10, -39.63; n=4632; I2 83%) and medium-to-long term (MD -20.14; 95%CI -34.13, -6.16; n=4537; I2 65%). The findings demonstrated that interventions in children when compared to active controls may lead to relevant reductions in daily sedentary time in the short-term (MD -59.90; 95%CI -102.16, -17.65; n=267; I2 86%), while interventions in children when compared to inactive controls may lead to relevant reductions in the short-term (MD -25.86; 95%CI -40.77, -10.96; n=9480; I2 98%) and medium-to-long term (MD -14.02; 95%CI -19.49, -8.55; n=41,138; I2 98%). The assessment of complexity suggested that interventions may need to be suitably complex to address the challenges of a complex behaviour such as SB, but demonstrated that a higher complexity score is not necessarily associated with better outcomes in terms of sustained long-term changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions targeting reductions in SB have been shown to be successful, especially environmental interventions in both children and adults. More needs to be known about how best to optimise intervention effects. Future intervention studies should apply more rigorous methods to improve research quality, considering larger sample sizes, randomised controlled designs and valid and reliable measures of SB.

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

Sit-stand desks can reduce occupational sitting time, however, their cost can limit scalability. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a low-cost standing desk on objectively-measured occupational sitting and prolonged sitting bouts over 3- and 6-months. Secondary outcomes included self-report work engagement and occupational fatigue. Forty-eight office employees (91.7% female, M_age = 39.8 ± 10.1) were randomized to receive a low-cost standing desk or to a control group. At 3-months, the intervention group sat 0.7 h (42min) less at work compared to the control group; F(1, 45) = 5.90, partial η² = 0.12, p = .019. The effect was small, yet comparable to findings from studies using costlier alternatives. However, these reductions were not maintained at 6-months. No changes in prolonged sitting bouts or secondary outcomes were found. There is some potential for low-cost standing desk converters as a scalable workplace health intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03375749, Registered 18 December 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03375749?term=NCT03375749&rank=1.

The effectiveness of workplace nutrition and physical activity interventions in improving productivity, work performance and workability: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Healthy lifestyles play an important role in the prevention of premature death, chronic diseases, productivity loss and other social and economic concerns. However, workplace interventions to address issues of fitness and nutrition which include work-related outcomes are complex and thus challenging to implement and appropriately measure the effectiveness of. This systematic review investigated the impact of workplace nutrition and physical activity interventions, which include components aimed at workplace's physical environment and organizational structure, on employees' productivity, work performance and workability.

METHODS

A systematic review that included randomized controlled trials and or non-randomized controlled studies was conducted. Medline, EMBASE.com, Cochrane Library and Scopus were searched until September 2016. Productivity, absenteeism, presenteeism, work performance and workability were the primary outcomes of our interest, while sedentary behavior and changes in other health-related behaviors were considered as secondary outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full-texts for study eligibility, extracted the data and performed a quality assessment using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk-of-Bias Tool for randomized trials and the Risk-of-Bias in non-randomized studies of interventions. Findings were narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine randomized control trials and non-randomized controlled studies were included. Nearly 28% of the included studies were of high quality, while 56% were of medium quality. The studies covered a broad range of multi-level and environmental-level interventions. Fourteen workplace nutrition and physical activity intervention studies yielded statistically significant changes on absenteeism (n = 7), work performance (n = 2), workability (n = 3), productivity (n = 1) and on both workability and productivity (n = 1). Two studies showed effects on absenteeism only between subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The scientific evidence shows that it is possible to influence work-related outcomes, especially absenteeism, positively through health promotion efforts that include components aimed at the workplace's physical work environment and organizational structure. In order to draw further conclusions regarding work-related outcomes in controlled high-quality studies, long-term follow-up using objective outcomes and/or quality assured questionnaires are required.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration number: PROSPERO CRD42017081837.

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.

Stand Up, Students! Decisional Cues Reduce Sedentary Behavior in University Students

Background: University students are prone to sedentary behavior (SB) which is associated with multiple negative health outcomes. Sit-stand desks may allow for a reduction of SB through standing bouts. To promote standing in university students, decisional cues might be a low-cost approach that can easily be implemented. Purpose: To investigate the effects of decisional cues on students' SB, standing, and active behavior. Method: Over 3 weeks, students were observed in a building on a German university campus, which provides sit-stand-desks in study areas, using an adapted version of the SOPLAY protocol. Baseline data was collected in the first week (T1), before posters and table plaques containing decisional cues were set up in the study areas. Effects were measured in the following 2 weeks (T2 and T3). Results: 2,809 (33% female) students were observed. Sitting decreased from 92.9% [SD = 14.9] to 84.5% [SD = 22.1] from T1 to T3 [F (1, 141) = 15.6; p < 0.01; η2 = 0.10]. Standing increased from 5.6% [SD = 13.5] to 10.9% [SD = 14.4] [F (1, 141) = 9.0; p < 0.01; η2 = 0.06] and being active from 1.5% [SD = 6.9] to 4.5% [SD = 14.8] from T1 to T3 [F (1, 141) = 4.2; p < 0.05; η2 = 0.03). Main effect analyses revealed more students standing in the afternoon compared to morning and lunchtime [F (2, 140) = 3.2; p < 0.05; η2 = 0.04). Discussion: Decisional cues could decrease students' SB and promote standing or being active as alternatives. Future research should use a more rigorous study design. The content of the decisional cues should be explored more and expanded to other health promotion areas on campus.

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.

Office workers' experiences of attempts to reduce sitting-time: an exploratory, mixed-methods uncontrolled intervention pilot study

BACKGROUND

Office workers typically sit for most of the workday, which has been linked to physical and mental ill-health and premature death. This mixed-methods study sought to identify barriers and facilitators to reducing sitting and increasing standing among office workers who received an intervention prototype (the 'ReSiT [Reducing Sitting Time] Study'). The intervention comprised a sit-stand workstation and tailored advice to enhance motivation, capability and opportunity to displace sitting with standing.

METHODS

Twenty-nine UK university office workers (aged ≥18y, working ≥3 days per week, most time spent at a seated desk) participated in a 13-week uncontrolled study. They were initially monitored for one-week. In a subsequent face-to-face consultation, participants received sitting time feedback from a prior one-week monitoring period, and selected from a set of tailored sitting-reduction techniques. Quantitative data comprising sitting, standing and stepping time, which were objectively monitored for 7 consecutive days across three post-intervention timepoints, were descriptively analysed. Qualitative data, from semi-structured interviews conducted at 1, 6 and 12-weeks post-intervention, were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Compared to baseline, mean sitting time decreased at weeks 1, 6 and 12 by 49.7mins, 118.2mins, and 109.7mins respectively. Despite prior concerns about colleagues' reactions to standing, many reported encouragement from others, and standing could be equally conducive to social interaction or creating private, personal space. Some perceived less cognitively-demanding tasks to be more conducive to standing, though some found standing offered a valued break from challenging tasks. Participants prioritised workload over sitting reduction and were more likely to stand after rather than during work task completion. Temporary context changes, such as holidays, threatened to derail newfound routines.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings emphasise the importance of understanding workers' mental representations of their work, and the social functions of sitting and standing in the workplace. Workplace intervention developers should incorporate a pre-intervention sitting time monitoring period, encourage workers to identify personally meaningful tasks and cues for standing, and build organisational support for sitting-reduction. We will use these insights to refine our intervention for self-administered delivery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN29395780 (registered 21 November 2016).

Association between sitting time and obesity: A population-based study in Peru

AIM

To assess if there is an association between sitting time and obesity among adult Peruvian population, using three different anthropometric measurements.

METHODS

A secondary analysis using data from a population-based study, the National Household Survey (ENAHO, in Spanish), was conducted enrolling adults aged ≥18 years from the 25 regions of Peru using a multistage random sampling technique. The outcome of interest was obesity, determined by body mass index (BMI > 30 kg/m² ), waist circumference (WC > 80 and >90 cm in women and men, respectively) and waist to height ratio (WHR > 0.5); while the exposure was sitting time, measured using the last domain of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and then categorised in <4 hours/day, 4 to <8 hours/day and 8+ hours/day. Associations were estimated using Poisson regression models, reporting prevalence ratios (PRs) and their respective 95% CI.

RESULTS

Data from 8587 subjects were analysed; mean age was 38.4 (SD: 13.5) and 53.6% were females. The prevalence of obesity was 16.3% (95% CI: 15.2-17.5%) by BMI, 58.5% (95% CI: 56.9-60.0%) by WC, and 78.0% (95% CI: 76.5-79.3%) by WHR. In the multivariable model, subjects reporting a sitting time of 8+ hours/day were more likely to be obese than those reporting <4 hours/day according to BMI (PR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.15-1.65), WC (PR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.12-1.28) and WHR (PR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.01-1.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Subjects with greater sitting time were more likely to be obese, and this association was evident with three different anthropometric indicators. Findings suggest the need of generating public health actions to reduce sedentary behaviour.

Device-measured physical activity, sedentary behaviour and cardiometabolic health and fitness across occupational groups: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

With approximately 8 hours of one's waking day spent at work, occupational tasks and environments are important influencers on an individual's physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviours. Little research has compared device-measured physical activity, sedentary behaviour and cardiometabolic outcomes between occupational groups.

OBJECTIVE

To compare device-measured movement (sedentary time [ST], light intensity physical activity [LPA], moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity [MVPA], and steps) across occupations. The secondary objective was to examine whether cardiometabolic and fitness outcomes differed by occupation.

METHODS

Five bibliographic databases were searched to identify all studies which included working age, employed adults from high-income countries, and reported on device-measured movement within occupations. Risk of bias within and across studies was assessed. Results were synthesized using meta-analyses and narrative syntheses.

RESULTS

The review includes 132 unique studies with data from 15,619 participants. Working adults spent ~ 60% of their working and waking time engaged in sedentary behaviour; a very small proportion (~ 4%) of the day included MVPA. On average, workers accumulated 8124 steps/day. Office and call center workers' steps/day were among the lowest, while those of postal delivery workers were highest. Office workers had the greatest ST and the lowest time in LPA both at work and during wakeful time. However, office workers had the greatest minutes sent in MVPA during wakeful hours. Laborers had the lowest ST and spent a significantly greater proportion of their work time in LPA and MVPA. Healthcare and protective services workers had higher levels of LPA at work compared to other occupations. Workers in driving-based occupations tended to have a higher body mass index and blood pressure.

CONCLUSION

This review identifies that occupational and wakeful time PA and ST differed between occupations. Future studies are needed to assess whether patterns differ by age and sex, describe leisure-time movement and movement patterns, and the relationship with cardiometabolic health.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017070448 .

A multi-component intervention to sit less and move more in a contact centre setting: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Call agents spend ~ 90% of their working day seated, which may negatively impact health, productivity, and wellbeing. This study aimed to explore the acceptability and feasibility of a multi-component workplace intervention targeting increased activity and decreased prolonged sitting in the contact centre setting prior to a full-scale effectiveness trial.

METHODS

An 8-week non-randomised pre-post feasibility study was conducted. Using a mixed methods approach, focus groups and interviews were thematically analysed to explore the acceptability and feasibility of key study phases, and provide context to agents' process evaluation and survey responses. The multi-component intervention, conducted in a single call centre, included height-adjustable workstations, emails, education and training sessions, and support from team leaders and a workplace champion.

RESULTS

Six (of 20) team leaders were recruited, with 17 of 84 call agents (78% female, 39.3 ± 11.9 years) completing baseline assessments and 13 completing follow-up. High workload influenced recruitment. Call agents perceived assessments as acceptable, though strategies are needed to enhance fidelity. Education sessions, height-adjustable workstations and emails were perceived as the most effective components; however, height-adjustable hot-desks were not perceived as feasible in this setting.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has identified unique, pragmatic considerations for conducting a multi-level, multi-component PA and SB intervention and associated evaluation in highly sedentary call agents in the challenging contact centre setting. The intervention was largely perceived positively, with call agents and team leaders describing numerous perceived positive effects on behavioural, health and work-related outcomes. Findings will be of value to researchers attempting to intervene in contact centres and will be used by the current authors to design a subsequent trial.

Impact of sit-stand desks at work on energy expenditure, sitting time and cardio-metabolic risk factors: Multiphase feasibility study with randomised controlled component

Uncertainties remain about the overall effect of sit-stand desks for reducing prolonged sitting among office-based workers. This study assessed the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of the impact of workplace sit-stand desks on overall energy expenditure, sitting time and cardio-metabolic outcomes. It involved four phases: Phase I: online survey; Phase II: workspace auditing; Phase III: randomised intervention (provision of sit-stand desks at work for 3 months); Phase IV: qualitative component. Participants were offıce-based employees of two companies in Cambridge, England. Among Phase I participants interested in the trial, 100 were randomised to Phase II. Of those with workspaces suitable for sit-stand desks, 20 were randomised to Phase III. Those allocated to the intervention completed Phase IV. Outcomes included: trial participation interest, desk-type (full desks/desk mounts) and assessment location (work/laboratory/home) preferences (Phase I); proportion of workspaces permitting sit-stand desk installation (Phase II); energy expenditure, sitting time and cardio-metabolic outcomes (Phase III); study participation experiences (Phase IV). Data were collected between May 2015 and December 2016. Recruitment and trial implementation were feasible: 92% of survey respondents expressed participation interest; 80% of workspaces could accommodate sit-stand desks; assessments were done in workplaces, preferred by 71%. Sit-stand desk provision reduced workplace sitting time by 94 min/day (95% CI 17.7-170.7). Their impact on energy expenditure and cardio-metabolic outcomes is unclear. The results confirm the feasibility of a trial assessing sit-stand desks' impact on energy expenditure, sitting time and cardio-metabolic outcomes, which should reduce uncertainty concerning the intervention's potential to reduce the health risks of prolonged sitting. Trial registration ISRCTN44827407.

The effects of sedentary behaviour interventions on work-related productivity and performance outcomes in real and simulated office work: A systematic review

This review examined the impact of environmental, behavioral, and combined interventions to reduce occupational sedentary behaviour on work performance and productivity outcomes. Productivity outcomes were defined as variables assessing work-related tasks (e.g., typing, mouse), whereas performance outcomes were categorized as any variables assessing cognition that did not mimic work-related tasks. Nine databases were searched for articles published up to January 2018. Sixty-three studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria: 45 examined a productivity outcome (i.e., typing, mouse, work-related tasks, and absenteeism), 38 examined a performance outcome (i.e., memory, reading comprehension, mathematics, executive function, creativity, psychomotor function, and psychobiological factors), and 30 examined a self-reported productivity/performance outcome (i.e., presenteeism or other self-reported outcome). Overall, standing interventions do not appear to impact productivity/performance outcomes, whereas walking and cycling interventions demonstrate mixed null/negative associations for productivity outcomes. Hence, standing interventions to reduce occupational sedentary behaviour could be implemented without negatively impacting productivity/performance outcomes.

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.

An Integrative, Systematic Review Exploring the Research, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance of Interventions to Reduce Sedentary Behaviour in Office Workers

Sedentary behaviour is associated with poor health outcomes, and office-based workers are at significant health risk, as they accumulate large proportions of their overall sitting time at work. The aim of this integrated systematic review was to collate and synthesize published research on sedentary behaviour interventions in the workplace that have reported on at least one an aspect of the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Studies were included if they involved adult office workers, were conducted in an office setting, and changes in sedentary behaviour had been measured as a primary outcome. Five electronic databases were searched yielding 7234 articles, with 75 articles (61 individual interventions) meeting the inclusion criteria. Reach indicators were the most frequently reported RE-AIM dimensions, which were reported on average 59% of the time. Efficacy/effectiveness was the second most reported dimension at 49% reporting across all of the indicators. Implementation indicators were reported an average of 44% of the time, with indicators of adoption and maintenance reported as the lowest of all indicators at 13% and 8%, respectively. Recommendations are provided to improve reporting across all RE-AIM dimensions, which is an important first step to enable the effective translation of interventions into real world settings.

Multi-Stakeholder Perspectives of Factors That Influence Contact Centre Call Agents' Workplace Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour

Contact centre call agents are highly sedentary at work, which can negatively affect cardio-metabolic health. This qualitative cross-sectional study explored factors influencing call agents' workplace physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB), and perspectives on strategies to help agents move more and sit less at work. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups with call agents (n = 20), team leaders (n = 11) and senior staff (n = 12) across four contact centres were guided by the socio-ecological model and analysed thematically. Agents offered insights into the impact of high occupational sitting and low PA on their physical and mental health, and factors influencing their motivation to move more and sit less at work. Team leaders, although pivotal in influencing behaviours, identified their own workload, and agents' requirement to meet targets, as factors influencing their ability to promote agents to move more and sit less at work. Further, senior team leaders offered a broad organisational perspective on influential factors, including business needs and the importance of return on investment from PA and SB interventions. Unique factors, including continuous monitoring of productivity metrics and personal time, a physical connection to their workstation, and low autonomy over their working practices, seemed to limit call agents' opportunity to move more and sit less at work. Proposed strategies included acknowledgement of PA and SB within policy and job roles, height-adjustable workstations, education and training sessions and greater interpersonal support. Additionally, measuring the impact of interventions was perceived to be key for developing a business case and enhancing organisational buy-in. Multi-level interventions embedded into current working practices appear important for the multiple stakeholders, while addressing concerns regarding productivity.

The development, implementation and evaluation of interventions to reduce workplace sitting: a qualitative systematic review and evidence-based operational framework

BACKGROUND

Prolonged sitting is associated with increased risks of cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, some cancers, musculoskeletal disorders and premature mortality. Workplaces contribute to a large proportion of daily sitting time, particularly among office-based workers. Interventions to reduce workplace sitting therefore represent important public health initiatives. Previous systematic reviews suggest such interventions can be effective but have reported wide variations. Further, there is uncertainty as to whether effectiveness in controlled trials can be replicated when implemented outside the research setting. The aims of this review are to identify factors important for the implementation of workplace sitting interventions and to translate these findings into a useful operational framework to support the future implementation of such interventions.

METHODS

A qualitative systematic review was conducted. Four health and social science databases were searched for studies set in the workplace, with office-based employees and with the primary aim of reducing workplace sitting. Extracted data were primarily from author descriptions of interventions and their implementation. Inductive thematic analysis and synthesis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Forty studies met the inclusion criteria. Nine descriptive themes were identified from which emerged three higher-order analytical themes, which related to the development, implementation and evaluation of workplace sitting interventions. Key findings included: the importance of grounding interventions in theory; utilising participative approaches during intervention development and implementation; and conducting comprehensive process and outcome evaluations. There was a general under-reporting of information relating to the context within which workplace sitting interventions were implemented, such as details of local organisation processes and structures, as well as the wider political and economic landscape, which if present would aid the translation of knowledge into "real-world" settings.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provided the basis for an operational framework, which is a representation of all nine descriptive themes and three higher-order analytical themes, to support workplace sitting intervention development, implementation and evaluation. Once tested and refined, this framework has the potential to be incorporated into a practical toolkit, which could be used by a range of organisations to develop, implement and evaluate their own interventions to reduce workplace sitting time amongst staff.

A detailed description of the short-term musculoskeletal and cognitive effects of prolonged standing for office computer work

Due to concerns about excessive sedentary exposure for office workers, alternate work positions such as standing are being trialled. However, prolonged standing may have health and productivity impacts, which this study assessed. Twenty adult participants undertook two hours of laboratory-based standing computer work to investigate changes in discomfort and cognitive function, along with muscle fatigue, movement, lower limb swelling and mental state. Over time, discomfort increased in all body areas (total body IRR [95% confidence interval]: 1.47[1.36-1.59]). Sustained attention reaction time (β = 18.25[8.00-28.51]) deteriorated, while creative problem solving improved (β = 0.89[0.29-1.49]). There was no change in erector spinae, rectus femoris, biceps femoris or tibialis anterior muscle fatigue; low back angle changed towards less  lordosis, pelvis movement increased, lower limb swelling increased and mental state decreased. Body discomfort was positively correlated with mental state. The observed changes suggest replacing office work sitting with standing should be done with caution. Practitioner Summary: Standing is being used to replace sitting by office workers; however, there are health risks associated with prolonged standing. In a laboratory study involving 2 h prolonged standing discomfort increased (all body areas), reaction time and mental state deteriorated while creative problem-solving improved. Prolonged standing should be undertaken with caution.

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.

Sitting to standing postural changes: Energy expenditure and a possible mechanism to alleviate sedentary behavior

Background and aims Sedentary lifestyles have recently been identified as potential mechanism for obesity and associated metabolic diseases linked to ill health. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of standing and sitting-standing positional changes on energy cost and consequently interrupting sedentary sitting time while working. Methods A total of 26 healthy male volunteers performed normal typing and editing work for 100 min under three conditions. The conditions included sustained sitting, sustained standing, and sitting-standing alternation every 20 min using a sit-stand desk. Respiratory parameters measured included minute ventilation (VE), oxygen consumption (VO₂), and energy expenditure (EE). Measurements were recorded using a calibrated Cosmed K4b² portable gas analysis system. Results The mean value for VE was the highest in the standing position (VE = 13.33 ± 0.71), followed by sitting-standing alternation (VE = 12.04 ± 0.62). Both were significantly different from sitting (VE = 10.59 ± 0.69). The maximum VE and EE for standing (VE = 14.81 ± 0.43 and EE = 1.84 ± 0.10) and sitting-standing alternation (VE = 14.80 ± 0.40 and EE = 1.93 ± 0.08) were significantly higher than that of sitting (VE = 12.15 ± 0.42 and EE = 1.67 ± 0.07). No significant differences were observed in the mean VO₂ among the three conditions. However, the maximum VO₂ for both standing (VO₂ = 5.40 ± 0.20) and sitting-standing alternation (VO₂ = 5.14 ± 0.17) had shown to be significantly higher than sitting (VO₂ = 4.50 ± 0.18). There were no significant differences observed in the mean EE levels between sitting (EE = 1.43 ± 0.07) and sitting-standing alternation (EE = 1.55 ± 0.08). However, the mean EE while standing (EE = 1.62 ± 0.09) significantly increased compared to sitting. Conclusions The findings of this study indicate that sitting-standing alternations may be implemented as an effective intervention to interrupt prolonged sitting while working.

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.

The Impact of Active Workstations on Workplace Productivity and Performance: A Systematic Review

Active workstations have been recommended for reducing sedentary behavior in the workplace. It is important to understand if the use of these workstations has an impact on worker productivity. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the effect of active workstations on workplace productivity and performance. A total of 3303 articles were initially identified by a systematic search and seven articles met eligibility criteria for inclusion. A quality appraisal was conducted to assess risk of bias, confounding, internal and external validity, and reporting. Most of the studies reported cognitive performance as opposed to productivity. Five studies assessed cognitive performance during use of an active workstation, usually in a single session. Sit-stand desks had no detrimental effect on performance, however, some studies with treadmill and cycling workstations identified potential decreases in performance. Many of the studies lacked the power required to achieve statistical significance. Three studies assessed workplace productivity after prolonged use of an active workstation for between 12 and 52 weeks. These studies reported no significant effect on productivity. Active workstations do not appear to decrease workplace performance.