Does proactive cyclic usage of a footrest prevent the development of standing induced low back pain?

Various interventions, such as standing intermittently with one leg on a footrest, have been suggested to prevent low back pain (LBP) development during prolonged standing. To assess this standing intervention twelve participants stood for 80 min while cycling through three minute periods of level-ground standing divided by one minute periods with either the right or left leg elevated onto a platform. All participants had previously participated in a prolonged level standing protocol and were classified as pain (PD) or non-pain developers (NPD). Out of the six known PDs, only one PD developed LBP by the end of the standing intervention. The intervals of elevated leg standing resulted in increased lumbar spine flexion in comparison to level standing. In addition, over time there was an increase in lumbar spine flexion during the level standing intervals. This change in lumbar spine posture in standing pain developers likely contributed to the reduced LBP development during this prolonged standing intervention.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effects of an Electronic Height-Adjustable Worksurface on Computer Worker Musculoskeletal Discomfort and Productivity

Thirty three computer workers from two companies worked at fixed-height worksurfaces (FHWs) and then at electronic height-adjustable worksurfaces (EHAWs) for 4–6 weeks. Subjects completed survey questionnaires before and after using the EHAWs. Results showed significant decreases in the severity of musculoskeletal discomfort for most upper body segments. In the EHAW condition daily discomfort ratings were lower in the afternoon and productivity ratings improved. There was a strong preference for using the EHAWs. An attempt to assess any placebo effect met with limited success. Further studies are needed.

Nurturing and Pampering Paradigm for Office Ergonomics

This paper proposes that current ergonomic practices for design of sedentary jobs, focusing on comfort and support, are inadequate to create healthy and productive workplaces. In fact, they may be counter-productive over the long term. The key results from several research investigations supporting this proposition are: 1) Comfortable workstations adjusted to the user, along with training and education, were inadequate to relieve potentially harmful spinal stress and circulatory impedance caused by sedentary jobs (Paul, 1995; Paul and Helander, 1995). 2) Sedentary jobs induced cognitive mood states like drowsiness and lack of alertness that degrade cognitive function and performance (Paul, 1995b). 3) Activity and movement, for example, between sitting and standing, significantly reduced spinal stress and improved blood circulation (Paul, 1995a; Paul and Helander, 1996a). They also improved mood states linked with superior mental performance (Paul, 1995b; Paul, Morrow and Helander, 1996) 4) Excessively comfortable sedentary work settings induce mood states that could be detrimental to cognitive performance (Paul, Morrow and Helander, 1996). 5) Comfort and discomfort are not two ends of an evaluative spectrum, but rather two orthogonal constructs with two sets of casual factors (Zhang and Helander, 1992). These results collectively provided foundation for the nurturing and pampering paradigm. In this paradigm, nurturing is the strategy to reduce discomfort and pampering is the strategy to apply comfort. Nurturing promotes active, dynamic use of the body during workday to maintain health and prevent injuries. It is discussed using phrases like ‘the best posture is the next posture’ or ‘use it or lose it.’ Pampering with aesthetic and plush environments that induce comfortable perceptions, on the other hand, is a motivational tool with an inverted-U relationship to performance. Utility of this paradigm to create healthy and productive work settings and reduce occupational injuries is supported with several studies from diverse fields. Finally, its implications for workplace design and limitations are discussed.