How supportive are workplace environments for sitting less and moving more? A descriptive study of Australian workplaces participating in the BeUpstanding program

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sedentary behaviour interventions in offices to reduce sitting time in Australian desk-based workers: A modelling study

OBJECTIVES

Sedentary behaviour (SB) is associated with increased incidence of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes (T2D), cardiovascular disease, cancers, and premature mortality. SB interventions in workplaces are effective in reducing sitting time. Previous economic evaluations have not specifically used changes in sitting time to estimate the long-term impact of SB on chronic disease-related health and cost outcomes. This research evaluated the cost-effectiveness of three hypothetical SB interventions: behavioural (BI), environmental (EI) and multi-component intervention (MI), implemented in the Australian context, using a newly developed epidemiological model that estimates the impact of SB as a risk factor on long-term population health and associated cost outcomes.

METHOD

Pathway analysis was used to identify the resource items associated with implementing each of the three interventions using a limited societal perspective (included costs: health sector, individuals and industry; excluded costs: productivity). The effectiveness of the modelled interventions in reducing daily sitting time (informed by published meta-analyses) was modelled for the Australian working population aged 20-65 years. A multi-cohort Markov model was developed to simulate the 2019 Australian population and estimate the incidence, prevalence and mortality of five diseases causally related to excessive sitting time, over the life course. Monte-Carlo simulations were used to calculate each intervention's mean incremental costs and benefits (quantified as health adjusted life years HALYs) compared to a do-nothing comparator.

RESULTS

When implemented at the national level, the interventions were estimated to reach 1,018 organisations with 1,619,239 employees. The estimated incremental cost of SB interventions was A$159M (BI), A$688M (EI) and A$438M (MI) over a year. Incremental health-adjusted life years (HALYs) gained by BI, EI and MI were 604, 919 and 349, respectively. The mean ICER for BI was A$251,863 per HALY gained, A$737,307 for EI and A$1,250,426 for MI. Only BI had any probability (2%) of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000 per HALY gained from a societal perspective.

CONCLUSION

SB interventions are not cost-effective when a reduction in sitting time is the outcome measure of interest. The cost-effectiveness results are heavily driven by the cost of the sit-stand desks and the small HALYs gained from reducing sitting time. Future research should focus on capturing non-health-benefits of these interventions, such as productivity, work satisfaction, and other health benefits: metabolic, physical, and musculoskeletal outcomes. Importantly, the health benefits of simultaneously reducing sitting time and increasing standing time for such interventions should be captured with the joint effects of these risk factors appropriately considered.

Non-adherence to the World Health Organization's physical activity recommendations and associated factors among healthy adults in urban centers of Southwest Ethiopia

Physical inactivity is a major risk-factor of non-communicable diseases. The World Health Organization has set physical activity recommendations for adults to reduce physical inactivity and its consequences. However, 1.4 billion adults are non-adherent to the recommendation worldwide. The prevalence of non-adherence to this recommendation and its predictors has not been assessed in urban Ethiopia. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of non-adherence to physical activity recommendations and identify its associated factors among healthy adults in urban centers of Southwest Ethiopia. A community-based cross-sectional study was employed from May to June 2021, involving 1191 adults in urban centers of Southwest Ethiopia. Data was collected using Global Physical Activity Questionnaire. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with non-adherence to physical activity recommendations using 95% confidence interval of adjusted odds ratio at P-value of < 0.05.Overall, 61.2% of participants were non-adherent to physical activity recommendations. Older age (AOR = 6.6; 95%CI (2.3-19)), female sex (AOR = 6.1; 95%CI (3.5-10.5)), lower educational status (AOR = 0.5; 95%CI (.28-0.93)), less community engagement (AOR = 2.7;95% CI (1.3-5.5)), lower level of happiness (AOR = 4.7; 95%CI (1.3-16.8)) and physical inactivity of family members (AOR = 2.5; 95%CI (1.4-4.3)) were associated with non-adherence. The prevalence of non-adherence to physical activity recommendations in the study area is high. Age, sex, educational status, community engagement, level of happiness and physical inactivity of family members were predictors of non-adherence to the recommendations. Interventions have to target females and older adults. Community participation and family based physical activity have to be advocated to avert the consequences of physical inactivity.

The Importance of Research on Occupational Sedentary Behaviour and Activity Right Now

The workplace has been identified as a key setting for public health interventions to 'promote and maintain the highest degree of physical, mental and social well-being of workers in all occupations' by the World Health Organisation [...].

Tensions and Paradoxes of Scaling Up: A Critical Reflection on Physical Activity Promotion

Achieving system-level, sustainable 'scale-up' of interventions is the epitome of successful translation of evidence-based approaches in population health. In physical activity promotion, few evidence-based interventions reach implementation at scale or become embedded within systems for sustainable health impact. This is despite the vast published literature describing efficacy studies of small-scale physical activity interventions. Research into physical activity scale-up (through case-study analysis; evaluations of scale-up processes in implementation trials; and mapping the processes, strategies, and principles for scale-up) has identified barriers and facilitators to intervention expansion. Many interventions are implemented at scale by governments but have not been evaluated or have unpublished evaluation information. Further, few public health interventions have evaluations that reveal the costs and benefits of scaled-up implementation. This lack of economic information introduces an additional element of risk for decision makers when deciding which physical activity interventions should be supported with scarce funding resources. Decision-makers face many other challenges when scaling interventions which do not relate to formal research trials of scale-up; Methods: To explore these issues, a multidisciplinary two-day workshop involving experts in physical activity scale-up was convened by the University of Newcastle, Australia, and the University of Ottawa, Canada (February 2019); Results: In this paper we discuss some of the scale-up tensions (challenges and conflicts) and paradoxes (things that are contrary to expectations) that emerged from this workshop in the context of the current literature and our own experiences in this field. We frame scale-up tensions according to epistemology, methodology, time, and partnerships; and paradoxes as 'reach without scale', 'planned serendipity' and 'simple complexity'. We reflect on the implications of these scale-up tensions and paradoxes, providing considerations for future scale-up research and practice moving forward; Conclusions: In this paper, we delve deeper into stakeholders' assumptions, processes and expectations of scaling up, and challenge in what ways as stakeholders, we all contribute to desired or undesired outcomes. Through a lens of 'tensions' and 'paradoxes', we make an original contribution to the scale-up literature that might influence current perspectives of scaling-up, provide future approaches for physical activity promotion, and contribute to understanding of dynamic of research-practice partnerships.

Sitting less and moving more for improved metabolic and brain health in type 2 diabetes: 'OPTIMISE your health' trial protocol

Background

Clinical practice guidelines recommend that adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) sit less and move more throughout the day. The 18-month OPTIMISE Your Health Clinical Trial was developed to support desk-based workers with T2D achieve these recommendations. The two-arm protocol consists of an intervention and control arms. The intervention arm receives 6 months health coaching, a sit-stand desktop workstation and an activity tracker, followed by 6 months of text message support, then 6 months maintenance. The control arm receives a delayed modified intervention after 12 months of usual care. This paper describes the methods of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention, compared to a delayed intervention control.

Methods

This is a two-arm RCT being conducted in Melbourne, Australia. Desk-based workers (≥0.8 full-time equivalent) aged 35–65 years, ambulatory, and with T2D and managed glycaemic control (6.5–10.0% HbA1c), are randomised to the multicomponent intervention (target n = 125) or delayed-intervention control (target n = 125) conditions. All intervention participants receive 6 months of tailored health coaching assisting them to “sit less” and “move more” at work and throughout the day, supported by a sit-stand desktop workstation and an activity tracker (Fitbit). Participants receive text message-based extended care for a further 6-months (6–12 months) followed by 6-months of non-contact (12–18 months: maintenance). Delayed intervention occurs at 12–18 months for the control arm. Assessments are undertaken at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 15 and 18-months. Primary outcomes are activPAL-measured sitting time (h/16 h day), glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c; %, mmol/mol) and, cognitive function measures (visual learning and new memory; Paired Associates Learning Total Errors [adjusted]). Secondary, exploratory, and process outcomes will also be collected throughout the trial.

Discussion

The OPTIMISE Your Health trial will provide unique insights into the benefits of an intervention aimed at sitting less and moving more in desk-bound office workers with T2D, with outcomes relevant to glycaemic control, and to cardiometabolic and brain health. Findings will contribute new insights to add to the evidence base on initiating and maintaining behaviour change with clinical populations and inform practice in diabetes management.

Trial registration

ANZCTRN12618001159246.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13123-x.