Reducing Office Workers’ Sitting Time at Work Using Sit-Stand Protocols: Results From a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Effectiveness of interventions on sedentary behaviors in office workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Various interventions have sought to break sedentariness among office workers, but their pooled effect on sitting time reduction remains unknown. Also, it is essential to compare the effectiveness of different intervention types.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE (via EBSCO), PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to May 2, 2023. Two independent reviewers screened eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0. Randomized controlled trials aiming to reduce sitting at work were included. The primary outcome was sitting time at work per day. The secondary outcomes included cardiometabolic risk factors, psychological well-being, and work engagement. A random effects model was performed to synthesize continuous data as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies with 3169 participants were included. All intervention types in combination significantly reduced workplace sitting by 38 min per workday (95% CI: -47.32 to -28.72; P < 0.001; I2 = 49.78%). Interventions using environmental support (ES), motivational strategies (MS), or multiple components (multi) had all shown a significant reduction in work-time sedentary behavior (SB) relative to control groups. Regarding secondary outcomes, no significant effects were observed in physical or psychological outcomes besides high-density lipoprotein.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that SB reduction interventions are generally effective for reducing workplace sitting. Multi interventions with both ES and MS are recommended for future clinical applications. Future studies should aim not only to reduce SB but also to attain the benefits of SB reduction interventions on physical and psychological well-being.

Overview of the Role of Spatial Factors in Indoor SARS-CoV-2 Transmission: A Space-Based Framework for Assessing the Multi-Route Infection Risk

The COVID-19 pandemic has lasted from 2019 to 2022, severely disrupting human health and daily life. The combined effects of spatial, environmental, and behavioral factors on indoor COVID-19 spread and their interactions are usually ignored. Especially, there is a lack of discussion on the role of spatial factors in reducing the risk of virus transmission in complex and diverse indoor environments. This paper endeavours to summarize the spatial factors and their effects involved in indoor virus transmission. The process of release, transport, and intake of SARS-CoV-2 was reviewed, and six transmission routes according to spatial distance and exposure way were classified. The triangular relationship between spatial, environmental and occupant behavioral parameters during virus transmission was discussed. The detailed effects of spatial parameters on droplet-based, surface-based and air-based transmission processes and virus viability were summarized. We found that spatial layout, public-facility design and openings have a significant indirect impact on the indoor virus distribution and transmission by affecting occupant behavior, indoor airflow field and virus stability. We proposed a space-based indoor multi-route infection risk assessment framework, in which the 3D building model containing detailed spatial information, occupant behavior model, virus-spread model and infection-risk calculation model are linked together. It is also applicable to other, similar, respiratory infectious diseases such as SARS, influenza, etc. This study contributes to developing building-level, infection-risk assessment models, which could help building practitioners make better decisions to improve the building's epidemic-resistance performance.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Where Does the Time Go? Displacement of Device-Measured Sedentary Time in Effective Sedentary Behaviour Interventions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Research has shown the effectiveness of sedentary behaviour interventions on reducing sedentary time. However, no systematic review has studied where the reduced sedentary time after such interventions is displaced to.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to synthesize the evidence from interventions that have reduced sedentary behaviour and test the displacement of sedentary time into physical activity (light physical activity [LPA], moderate-to-vigorous physical activity [MVPA], standing, and stepping).

METHODS

Two independent researchers performed a systematic search of the EBSCOhost, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases. Meta-analyses were performed to examine the time reallocated from sedentary behaviour to physical activity during working time and the whole day in intervention trials (randomized/non-randomized controlled/non-controlled).

RESULTS

A total of 36 studies met all the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review, with 26 studies included in the meta-analysis. Interventions showed a significant overall increase in worksite LPA (effect size [ES] 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05 to 0.43; P < 0.013) and daily LPA (ES 0.62; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.91; P = 0.001). A statistically significant increase in daily MVPA was observed (ES 0.47; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.67; P < 0.001). There was a significant overall increase in worksite standing time (ES 0.76; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; P < 0.001), daily standing time (ES 0.52; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.65; P < 0.001), and worksite stepping time (ES 0.12; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.20; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Effective interventions aimed at reducing sedentary behaviour result in a consistent displacement of sedentary time to LPA and standing time, both at worksites and across the whole day, whereas changes in stepping time or MVPA are dependent on the intervention setting. Strategies to reduce sedentary behaviour should not be limited to worksite settings, and further efforts may be required to promote daily MVPA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42020153958.

Association of Behavioral Phenotypes With Changes in Sleep During a Workplace Wellness Program

PURPOSE

Examine changes in sleep duration by 3 behavioral phenotypes during a workplace wellness program with overweight and obese adults.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Remotely monitored intervention conducted across the United States.

SUBJECTS

553 participants with a body mass index ≥25.

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 study arms: control, gamification with support, gamification with collaboration, and gamification with competition to increase their physical activity. All participants were issued a wrist-worn wearable device to record their daily physical activity and sleep duration.

MEASURES

The primary outcome was change in daily sleep duration from baseline during the 24 week intervention and follow-up period by study arm within behavioral phenotype class.

ANALYSIS

Linear mixed effects regression.

RESULTS

Participants who had a phenotype of less physically active and less social at baseline, in the gamification with collaboration arm, significantly increased their sleep duration during the intervention period (30.2 minutes [95% CI 6.9, 53.5], P = 0.01), compared to the control arm. There were no changes in sleep duration among participants who were more extroverted and motivated or participants who were less motivated and at-risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in sleep during a physical activity intervention varied by behavioral phenotype. Behavioral phenotypes may help to precisely identify who is likely to improve sleep duration during a physical activity intervention.

Outdoor Office Work - An Interactive Research Project Showing the Way Out

The physical boundaries of office work have become increasingly flexible. Work is conducted at multiple locations outside the office, such as at clients' premises, at home, in cafés, or when traveling. However, the boundary between indoor and outdoor environment seems to be strong and normative regarding how office work is performed. The aim of this study was to explore how office work may be conducted outdoors, understanding how it is being experienced by office employees and identifying its contextual preconditions. Based on a two-year interactive research project, the study was conducted together with a Swedish municipality. Fifty-eight participants engaged in the collaborative learning process, including 40 half-day workshops and reflective group discussions, co-interviews, and participants' independent experimentation of bringing work activities outdoors. Data was collected via interviews, group discussions and a custom-made mobile application. The results showed that a wide range of work activities could be done outdoors, both individually and in collaboration with others. Outdoor work activities were associated with many positive experiences by contributing to a sense of well-being, recovery, autonomy, enhanced cognition, better communication, and social relations, but also with feelings of guilt and illegitimacy. Conditions of importance for outdoor office work to happen and function well were found in the physical environment, where proximity to urban greenspaces stood out as important, but also in the sociocultural and organizational domains. Of crucial importance was managers' attitudes, as well as the overall organizational culture on this idea of bringing office work outdoors. To conclude, if working life is to benefit from outdoor office work, leaders, urban planners and policymakers need to collaborate and show the way out.

Effects of Time in Sitting and Standing on Pleasantness, Acceptability, Fatigue, and Pain When Using a Sit-Stand Desk: An Experiment on Overweight and Normal-Weight Subjects

BACKGROUND

Sit-stand desks have been suggested as an initiative to increase posture variation among office workers. However, there is limited evidence of what would be preferable combinations of time sitting and standing. The aim of this study was to determine and compare perceived pleasantness, acceptability, pain, and fatigue for 5 time patterns of sitting and standing at a sit-stand desk.

METHODS

Thirty postgraduate students were equally divided into a normal-weight (mean body mass index 22.8 kg/m2) and an overweight/obese (mean body mass index 28.1 kg/m2) group. They performed 3 hours of computer work at a sit-stand desk on 5 different days, each day with a different time pattern (A: 60-min sit/0-min stand; B: 50/10; C: 40/20; D: 30/30; E: 20/40). Pleasantness, acceptability, pain, and fatigue ratings were obtained at the beginning and at the end of the 3-hour period.

RESULTS

High ratings of pleasantness were observed for time patterns B, C, and D in both groups. All participants rated acceptability to be good for time patterns A to D. A minor increase in perceived fatigue and pain was observed in time pattern E.

CONCLUSION

For new sit-stand desk users, regardless of body mass index, 10 to 30 minutes of standing per hour appears to be an amenable time pattern.

Do different sit-stand workstations influence lumbar kinematics, lumbar muscle activity and musculoskeletal pain in office workers? A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Purpose. This study investigated the effect of different sit-stand workstations on lumbar spine kinematics, lumbar muscle activity and musculoskeletal pain. Methods. Thirty-two office workers were randomized to one of three sit-stand workstations (Group 1, ratio of minutes spent sitting to standing each hour at work 40:20, n = 8; Group 2, 30:30, n = 6; Group 3, 20:40, n = 7) and a control group (usual sitting, n = 11). Intervention groups (Groups 1, 2 and 3) were collapsed into one group for analysis (n = 21). Data on lumbar kinematics and muscle activity were only collected for 25 participants due to equipment availability. Results. Participants in the intervention group had lower overall lumbar spine flexion angles during the workday compared to the control group (mean difference 10.6°; 95% confidence interval [-18.1, -3.2]; p = 0.008; Cohen's d = 1.5). There were no between-group differences for the remaining kinematic measures (i.e., mean flexion angle in standing and sitting, mean side flexion angle in standing and sitting, and percentage of time in upright sitting), muscle activity or presence of musculoskeletal pain. Conclusions. Sit-stand workstations reduced overall lumbar spine flexion angles over the course of a workday but had no effect on other kinematic measures, lumbar spine muscle activity or musculoskeletal pain.Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry identifier: ACTRN12615001018505..

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.

Efficacy of theory-informed workplace physical activity interventions: a systematic literature review with meta-analyses

This review aimed to assess the efficacy of workplace physical activity interventions; compare the efficacy of those that were and were not informed by behaviour change theory, and outline the effectiveness of different intervention components. A search was undertaken in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Ovid Emcare (previously CINAHL) and SportDiscus. Randomised, non-randomised and cluster-controlled trials with objectively measured physical activity and/or measured or predicted maximal oxygen uptake (VO_2max) as outcomes were included in the review (83 papers from 79 trials). Random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences were undertaken. Workplace physical activity programmes demonstrated positive overall intervention effects for daily step counts (814.01 steps/day; CI: 446.36, 1181.67; p < 0.01; i² = 88%) and measured VO_2max (2.53 ml kg^-1 min^-1; CI: 1.69, 3.36; p < 0.01; i² = 0%) with no sub-group differences between theory- and non-theory informed interventions. Significant sub-group differences were present for predicted VO_2max (p < 0.01), with a positive intervention effect for non-theory informed studies (2.11 ml.kg^-1 min^-1; CI: 1.20, 3.02; p < 0.01; i² = 78%) but not theory-informed studies (-0.63 ml kg^-1 min^-1; CI: -1.55, 0.30; p = 0.18; i² = 0%). Longer-term follow-ups ranged from 24 weeks to 13 years, with significant positive effects for measured VO_2max (2.84 ml kg^-1 min^-1; CI: 1.41, 4.27; p < 0.01; i² = 0%). Effective intervention components included the combination of self-monitoring with a goal, and exercise sessions onsite or nearby. The findings of this review were limited by the number and quality of theory-informed studies presenting some outcomes, and confounding issues in complex interventions. Future researchers should consider rigorous testing of outcomes of theory-informed workplace physical activity interventions and incorporate longer follow-ups.

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.

Moving to an "Active" Biophilic Designed Office Workplace: A Pilot Study about the Effects on Sitting Time and Sitting Habits of Office-Based Workers

Promising initial insights show that offices designed to permit physical activity (PA) may reduce workplace sitting time. Biophilic approaches are intended to introduce natural surroundings into the workplace, and preliminary data show positive effects on stress reduction and elevated productivity within the workplace. The primary aim of this pilot study was to analyze changes in workplace sitting time and self-reported habit strength concerning uninterrupted sitting and PA during work, when relocating from a traditional office setting to “active” biophilic-designed surroundings. The secondary aim was to assess possible changes in work-associated factors such as satisfaction with the office environment, work engagement, and work performance, among office staff. In a pre-post designed field study, we collected data through an online survey on health behavior at work. Twelve participants completed the survey before (one-month pre-relocation, T₁) and twice after the office relocation (three months (T₂) and seven months post-relocation (T₃)). Standing time per day during office hours increased from T₁ to T₃ by about 40 min per day (p < 0.01). Other outcomes remained unaltered. The results suggest that changing office surroundings to an active-permissive biophilic design increased standing time during working hours. Future larger-scale controlled studies are warranted to investigate the influence of office design on sitting time and work-associated factors during working hours in depth.

Employee Sleep and Workplace Health Promotion: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Workplace-based employee health promotion programs often target weight loss or physical activity, yet there is growing attention to sleep as it affects employee health and performance. The goal of this review is to systematically examine workplace-based employee health interventions that measure sleep duration as an outcome.

DATA SOURCE

We conducted systematic searches in PubMed, Web of Knowledge, EMBASE, Scopus, and PsycINFO (n = 6177 records).

STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA

To be included in this systematic review, studies must include (1) individuals aged >18 years, (2) a worker health-related intervention, (3) an employee population, and (4) sleep duration as a primary or secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Twenty studies met criteria. Mean health promotion program duration was 2.0 months (standard deviation [SD] = 1.3), and mean follow-up was 5.6 months (SD = 6.5). The mean sample size of 395 employees (SD = 700.8) had a mean age of 41.5 years (SD = 5.2). Measures of sleep duration included self-report from a general questionnaire (n = 12, 66.6%), self-report based on Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (n = 4, 22.2%), and self-report and actigraphy combined (n = 5, 27.7%). Studies most commonly included sleep hygiene (35.0%), yoga (25.0%), physical activity (10.0%), and cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (10.0%) interventions. Across the interventions, 9 different behavior change techniques (BCTs) were utilized; the majority of interventions used 3 or fewer BCTs, while 1 intervention utilized 4 BCTs. Study quality, on average, was 68.9% (SD = 11.1). Half of the studies found workplace-based health promotion program exposure was associated with a desired increase in mean nightly sleep duration (n = 10, 50.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study findings suggest health promotion programs may be helpful for increasing employee sleep duration and subsequent daytime performance.

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 .

Understanding the Office: Using Ecological Momentary Assessment to Measure Activities, Posture, Social Interactions, Mood, and Work Performance at the Workplace

Studying the workplace often involves using observational, self-report recall, or focus group tools, which all have their established advantages and disadvantages. There is, however, a need for a readily available, low-invasive method that can provide longitudinal, repeated, and concurrent in-the-moment information to understand the workplace well. In this study, ecological momentary assessment (EMA) was used to collect 508 real-time responses about activities, posture, work performance, social interactions, and mood in 64 adult office workers in three Australian workplaces. The response rate was 53%, and the time to fill out the survey was 50 seconds on average. On average, the participants were sitting, standing, and walking in 84%, 9%, and 7% of survey instances, respectively. The participants reported they were working alone at their desks in 55% of all reported instances. Reported mood varied up to nine points within one person over the course of the post-occupancy observations. EMA can be used to paint a rich picture of occupants’ experiences and perceptions and to gain invaluable understanding of temporal patterns of the workplace, how the space is used, and how aspects of the workplace interact. This information can be used to make improvements to the physical and social workspaces and enhance occupants’ work performance and mood.

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.

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.

Self-reported actual and desired proportion of sitting, standing, walking and physically demanding tasks of office employees in the workplace setting: do they fit together?

OBJECTIVE

Occupational sitting time in white-collar workers represents a prominent contributor to overall daily sitting time, which is associated with various health risks. Workplace interventions intending to reduce sitting time during work typically focus on replacing sitting with standing. The aim was to investigate and compare actual and desired proportions of time spent sitting, standing, walking, and doing physically demanding tasks at work reported by desk-based workers. Cross-sectional data were collected from German desk-based workers (n = 614; 53.3% men; 40.9 ± 13.5 years). All were interviewed about their self-reported actual and desired level of sitting, standing, walking and physically demanding tasks at work.

RESULTS

Desk-based workers reported to sit 73.0%, stand 10.2%, walk 12.9% and do physically demanding tasks 3.9% of their working hours. However, the individuals desire to sit, stand, walk and do physically demand tasks significantly different [53.8% sit, 15.8% stand, 22.8% walk, physically demanding tasks (7.7%), p < 0.001]. The present data revealed greatest mismatch between the desk-based workers' actual and desired time for sitting and walking. Health promotion programs should offer not only options for more standing but also opportunities for more walking within the workplace setting to better match workers' desires.

Breaking Up Sitting with Light-Intensity Physical Activity: Implications for Shift-Workers

Prolonged sitting, restricted sleep, and circadian disruption are all independent risk factors for non-communicable diseases. Previous research has demonstrated that breaking up sitting with light-intensity physical activity has clear benefits for the health of day workers, but these findings may not apply in the presence of sleep restriction and/or circadian disruption-both of which are commonly experienced by shift-workers. Specifically, sleep restriction, and circadian disruption result in acute physiological changes that may offset the benefits of breaking up sitting. This commentary will explore the potential benefits of breaking up sitting for health, work performance, and subsequent sleep in shift-workers. Future areas of research designed to understand the mechanisms by which prolonged sitting and shift work impact worker health and safety and to support the design of effective occupational health and safety interventions are proposed.