Evaluation of ergonomic and education interventions to reduce occupational sitting in office-based university workers: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Preventive factors against work-related musculoskeletal disorders: narrative review

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are major causes of morbidity among workers. They comprise several signs and symptoms, as e.g. pain, paresthesia, fatigue and limited range of motion, which can be related to work tasks. Workplace-related factors include physical, psychological, social and biomechanical hazards. The main kinetic factors associated with MSDs include repetitive movements, exerting excessive force, awkward postures, compression and mechanical vibration. Accurate knowledge of epidemiological aspects, evaluation of ergonomic hazards and musculoskeletal symptoms, and workplace exercise may help reduce the occurrence of MSDs. The aim of the present review is to analyze the applicability of preventive strategies against MSDs among workers. We performed a narrative review based on a survey of databases PubMed and BIREME and included studies published in English, Spanish or Portuguese. We found that workplace exercise is beneficial for both employers and workers. Risk analysis of MSDs is essential for early identification of occupational hazards and to prevent health consequences and costs associated with absenteeism.

Occupational Characteristics of Low Back Pain Among Standing Workers in a Japanese Manufacturing Company

Low back pain (LBP) is a major public health problem that adversely affects the quality of life (QOL) of workers. The etiology of LBP is considered to be multi-factorial with individual, physical, and psychosocial factors contributing to its development and persistence. Although prevention of LBP in workers in the workplace is very important, only a small number of studies have assessed the risk factors and epidemiology of LBP among Japanese factory workers who stand as part of their job. This cross-sectional study investigated the prevalence of LBP in 691 factory employees who conducted their work while standing. Health-related QOL was evaluated using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) to quantify the severity of LBP with the aim of identifying risk factors for LBP among workers who stand as part of their work in an electronics manufacturing company. We observed that the prevalence of LBP lasting for at least 48 hours within a week was 20.0% among participants, with female employees and those with a prior history of LBP having a significantly increased risk of developing LBP. The distribution of the RDQ score showed a negative regression curve among the employees, which was different from the normal distribution pattern reported previously in Japanese patients with LBP. These findings suggest that prolonged standing among factory workers poses an increased risk for LBP.

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.

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 overall effect of sit-stand desks for reducing sitting at work is uncertain.

•

A trial of sit-stand desks on energy expenditure, sitting and health factors is feasible.

•

Preliminary evidence suggests sit-stand desks' potential to reduce sitting at work.

•

Research should assess sit-stand desks' likely compensation effect and health impact.

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.

An investigation into four different sit-stand workstation use schedules

Twelve office workers participated in a study investigating effects of four sit/stand schedules (90-min sit/30-min stand, 80/40, 105/15, and 60/60) via several objective and subjective measures (muscle fatigue, foot swelling, spinal shrinkage, and self-reported discomfort). Results showed that there were no significant differences in shoulder and low back static muscle activities between sitting and standing. Muscle fatigue was developed during workday under all schedules. The longest standing schedule seemed to have a tendency of reducing muscle fatigue. None of the schedules helped or worsened foot swelling and spinal shrinkage. More active break-time activities seemed reducing muscle fatigue and foot swelling. While the self-reported bodily discomfort levels were generally low, the preferred schedules among the participants were varied, although the least standing schedule was the least preferred. We may conclude that effects of using sit-stand workstation to improve musculoskeletal health may be limited but promoting more active break-time activities can help. Practitioner Summary: Sit-stand workstations are used to reduce work-related musculoskeletal disorders. This study shows that office workers prefer sit/stand durations in the range between 1:1 and 3:1. Longer standing may have the potential to reduce muscle fatigue. However, active break-time activities may be more effective in reducing muscle fatigue and foot swelling.

Uprising: An examination of sit-stand workstations, mental health and work ability in sedentary office workers, in Western Australia

BACKGROUND

Office-based staff spend around three quarters of their work day sitting. People who sit for long periods while at work are at greater risk of adverse health outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The pilot study aimed to determine the effect of sit-stand workstations on office-based staff sedentary and physical activity behaviors, work ability and self-reported physical and mental health outcomes.

METHODS

A two-group pre-post study design assessed changes in sedentary and physical activity behaviors (time spent sitting, standing and stepping and sit-stand transitions and number of steps taken) work ability and physical and mental health. Physical activity behaviors were measured using activPAL activity monitors and self-reported data on work ability and physical and mental health were collected using an online questionnaire.

RESULTS

Relative to the controls (n=19), the intervention group (n=18) significantly decreased time spent sitting by 100 minutes (p<0.001) and increased standing time by 99 minutes (p<0.001). There was a decrease in self-reported current work ability when compared to lifetime best (p=0.008). There were no significant differences for all other sedentary behavior, other workability outcomes, physical health or mental health outcomes at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The Uprising Study found that sit-stand workstations are an effective strategy to reduce occupational sitting time in office-based workers over a one month period.

Stand by Me: Qualitative Insights into the Ease of Use of Adjustable Workstations

Background

Office workers sit for more than 80% of the work day making them an important target for work site health promotion interventions to break up prolonged sitting time. Adjustable workstations are one strategy used to reduce prolonged sitting time. This study provides both an employees' and employers' perspective into the advantages, disadvantages, practicality and convenience of adjustable workstations and how movement in the office can be further supported by organisations.

Methods

This qualitative study was part of the Uprising pilot study. Employees were from the intervention arm of a two group (intervention n = 18 and control n = 18) study. Employers were the immediate line-manager of the employee. Data were collected via employee focus groups (n = 17) and employer individual interviews (n = 12). The majority of participants were female (n = 18), had healthy weight, and had a post-graduate qualification. All focus group discussions and interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and the data coded according to the content. Qualitative content analysis was conducted.

Results

Employee data identified four concepts: enhanced general wellbeing; workability and practicality; disadvantages of the retro-fit; and triggers to stand. Most employees (n = 12) reported enhanced general well-being, workability and practicality included less email exchange and positive interaction (n = 5), while the instability of the keyboard a commonly cited disadvantage. Triggers to stand included time and task based prompts. Employer data concepts included: general health and wellbeing; work engagement; flexibility; employee morale; and injury prevention. Over half of the employers (n = 7) emphasised back care and occupational health considerations as important, as well as increased level of staff engagement and strategies to break up prolonged periods of sitting.

Discussion

The focus groups highlight the perceived general health benefits from this short intervention, including opportunity to sit less and interact in the workplace, creating an ‘energised’ work environment. The retro-fit workstation and keyboard platform provided challenges for some participants. Supervisors emphasised injury prevention and employee morale as two important by products of the adjustable workstation. These were not mentioned by employees. They called for champions to advocate for strategies to break up prolonged sitting.

Implications

The findings of this novel research from both the employee and employer perspective may support installation of adjustable workstations as one component of a comprehensive approach to improve the long term health of employees.

Impact of sit-stand desks at work on energy expenditure and sedentary time: protocol for a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Prolonged sitting, an independent risk factor for disease development and premature mortality, is increasing in prevalence in high- and middle-income countries, with no signs of abating. Adults in such countries spend the largest proportion of their day in sedentary behaviour, most of which is accumulated at work. One promising method for reducing workplace sitting is the use of sit-stand desks. However, key uncertainties remain about this intervention, related to the quality of existing studies and a lack of focus on key outcomes, including energy expenditure. We are planning a randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of sit-stand desks at work on energy expenditure and sitting time in the short and longer term. To reduce the uncertainties related to the design of this trial, we propose a preliminary study to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the recruitment, allocation, measurement, retention and intervention procedures.

METHODS

Five hundred office-based employees from two companies in Cambridge, UK, will complete a survey to assess their interest in participating in a trial on the use of sit-stand desks at work. The workspaces of 100 of those interested in participating will be assessed for sit-stand desk installation suitability, and 20 participants will be randomised to either the use of sit-stand desks at work for 3 months or a waiting list control group. Energy expenditure and sitting time, measured via Actiheart and activPAL monitors, respectively, as well as cardio-metabolic and anthropometric outcomes and other outcomes relating to health and work performance, will be assessed in 10 randomly selected participants. All participants will also be interviewed about their experience of using the desks and participating in the study.

DISCUSSION

The findings are expected to inform the design of a trial assessing the impact of sit-stand desks at work on short and longer term workplace sitting, taking into account their impact on energy expenditure and the extent to which their use has compensation effects outside the workplace. The findings from such a trial are expected to inform discussions regarding the potential of sit-stand desks at work to alleviate the harm to cardio-metabolic health arising from prolonged sitting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN44827407.

Assessing and understanding sedentary behaviour in office-based working adults: a mixed-method approach

Background

Sedentary behaviours (SB) can be characterized by low energy expenditure in a reclining position (e.g., sitting) often associated with work and transport. Prolonged SB is associated with increased risk for chronic conditions, and due to technological advances, the working population is in office settings with high occupational exposure to SB. This study aims to assess SB among office workers, as well as barriers and strategies towards reducing SB in the work setting.

Methods

Using a mixed-methods approach guided by the socio-ecological framework, non-academic office workers from a professional school in a large public university were recruited. Of 180 eligible office workers, 40 enrolled and completed all assessments. Self-reported and objectively measured SB and activity levels were captured. Focus group discussion (FGD) were conducted to further understand perceptions, barriers, and strategies to reducing workplace SB. Environmental factors were systematically evaluated by trained research staff using an adapted version of the Checklist for Health Promotion Environments at Worksites (CHEW). Thematic analysis of FGD was conducted and descriptive analysis of quantitative data was performed.

Results

The sample was mostly Chinese (n = 33, 80 %) with a total of 24 (60 %) female participants. Most participants worked five days a week for about 9.5(0.5) hrs/day. Accelerometer data show that participants spend the majority of their days in sedentary activities both on workdays (76.9 %) and non-workdays (69.5 %). Self-report data confirm these findings with median sitting time of 420(180) minutes at work. From qualitative analyses, major barriers to reducing SB emerged, including the following themes: workplace social and cultural norms, personal factors, job scope, and physical building/office infrastructure. CHEW results confirm a lack of support from the physical infrastructure and information environment to reducing SB.

Conclusions

There is high SB among office workers in this sample. We identified multiple levels of influence for prolonged occupational SB, with a particular emphasis on workplace norms and infrastructure as important barriers to reducing SB and increasing PA. A larger, representative sample of the Singaporean population is needed to confirm our findings but it seems that any intervention aimed at reducing SB in the workplace should target individual, environmental, and organizational levels.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3023-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work

BACKGROUND

Office work has changed considerably over the previous couple of decades and has become sedentary in nature. Physical inactivity at workplaces and particularly increased sitting has been linked to increase in cardiovascular disease, obesity and overall mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects 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, Clinical trials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to 2 June, 2015. We also screened reference lists of articles and contacted authors to find more studies to include.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCTs), and quasi-randomised controlled trials of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) with a concurrent control group. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or objectively measured by means of an accelerometer-inclinometer. We considered energy expenditure, duration and number of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more, 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 included 20 studies, two cross-over RCTs, 11 RCTs, three cRCTs and four CBAs, with a total of 2180 participants from high income nations. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (nine studies), policy changes (two studies), information and counselling (seven studies) and interventions from multiple categories (two studies). One study had both physical workplace changes and information and counselling components. We did not find any studies that had investigated the effect of periodic breaks or standing or walking meetings. Physical workplace changesA sit-stand desk alone compared to no intervention reduced sitting time at work per workday with between thirty minutes to two hours at short term (up to three months) follow-up (six studies, 218 participants, very low quality evidence). In two studies, sit-stand desks with additional counselling reduced sitting time at work in the same range at short-term follow-up (61 participants, very low quality evidence). One study found a reduction at six months' follow-up of -56 minutes (95% CI -101 to -12, very low quality evidence) compared to no intervention. Also total sitting time at work and outside work decreased with sit-stand desks compared to no intervention (MD -78 minutes, 95% CI -125 to -31, one study) as did the duration of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -52 minutes, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies). This is considerably less than the two to four hours recommended by experts. Sit-stand desks did not have a considerable effect on work performance, musculoskeletal symptoms or sick leave. It remains unclear if standing can repair the harms of sitting because there is hardly any extra energy expenditure.The effects of active workstations were inconsistent. Treadmill desks combined with counselling reduced sitting time at work (MD -29 minutes, 95% CI -55 to -2, one study) compared to no intervention at 12 weeks' follow-up. Pedalling workstations combined with information did not reduce inactive sitting at work considerably (MD -12 minutes, 95% CI -24 to 1, one study) compared to information alone at 16 weeks' follow-up. The quality of evidence was low for active workstations. Policy changesTwo studies with 443 participants provided low quality evidence that walking strategies did not have a considerable effect on workplace sitting time at 10 weeks' (MD -16 minutes, 95% CI -54 to 23) or 21 weeks' (MD -17 minutes, 95% CI -58 to 25) follow-up respectively. Information and counsellingCounselling reduced sitting time at work (MD -28 minutes, 95% CI -52 to -5, two studies, low quality evidence) at medium term (three months to 12 months) follow-up. Mindfulness training did not considerably reduce workplace sitting time (MD -2 minutes, 95% CI -22 to 18) at six months' follow-up and at 12 months' follow-up (MD -16 minutes, 95% CI -45 to 12, one study, low quality evidence). There was no considerable increase in work engagement with counselling.There was an inconsistent effect of computer prompting on sitting time at work. One study found no considerable effect on sitting at work (MD -17 minutes, 95% CI -48 to 14, low quality evidence) at 10 days' follow-up, while another study reported a significant reduction in sitting at work (MD -55 minutes, 95% CI -96 to -14, low quality evidence) at 13 weeks' follow-up. Computer prompts to stand reduced sitting at work by 14 minutes more (95% CI 10 to 19, one study) compared to computer prompts to step at six days' follow-up. Computer prompts did not change the number of sitting episodes that last 30 minutes or longer. Interventions from multiple categories Interventions combining multiple categories had an inconsistent effect on sitting time at work, with a reduction in sitting time at 12 weeks' (25 participants, very low quality evidence) and six months' (294 participants, low quality evidence) follow-up in two studies but no considerable effect at 12 months' follow-up in one study (MD -47.98, 95% CI -103 to 7, 294 participants, low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present there is very low to low quality evidence that sit-stand desks may decrease workplace sitting between thirty minutes to two hours per day without having adverse effects at the short or medium term. There is no evidence on the effects in the long term. There were no considerable or inconsistent effects of other interventions such as changing work organisation or information and counselling. There is a need for cluster-randomised trials with a sufficient sample size and long term follow-up to determine the effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce objectively measured sitting time at work.

Workplace building design and office-based workers' activity: a study of a natural experiment

Objective: This opportunistic natural study investigated the effects of relocation of office workers from a 30‐year‐old building to a new purpose‐built building. The new building included an attractive central staircase that was easily accessed and negotiated, as well as breakout spaces and a centralised facilities area. The researchers aimed to determine the impact of the purpose‐built office building on the office workers' sedentariness and level of physical activity.

Method: In 2013, a natural pre‐post study was undertaken with office‐based workers in their old conventional 1970s building and on relocating to a new purpose‐built ‘activity permissive’ building. Objective movement data was measured using accelerometers. Anthropometric and demographic data was also collected.

Results: Forty‐two office‐based workers significantly decreased their percentage of daily sitting time (T1 = 84.9% to T2=79.7%; p<0.001) and increased their percentage of daily standing time (T1=11.2% to T2 17.0%; p<0.001) in the new building. Moderate activity significantly declined (T1=3.9% to 3.2%=T2; p=0.038). There was a significant decrease in mean minutes of sitting time (19.62 minutes; p<0.001) and increase in standing time (22.03 minutes; p<0.001).

Conclusions: The design of a building can influence activity. This opportunistic study on the impact of workplace relocation on office‐based workers' activity showed modest positive outcomes in sitting and standing. Evidence is required to inform building design policy and practice that supports physical activity and reduces levels of sedentariness in the workplace.

Theory-driven, web-based, computer-tailored advice to reduce and interrupt sitting at work: development, feasibility and acceptability testing among employees

Background

Because of the adverse health effects in adults, interventions to influence workplace sitting, a large contributor to overall daily sedentary time, are needed. Computer-tailored interventions have demonstrated good outcomes in other health behaviours, though few have targeted sitting time at work. Therefore, the present aims were to (1) describe the development of a theory-driven, web-based, computer-tailored advice to influence sitting at work, (2) report on the feasibility of reaching employees, and (3) report on the acceptability of the advice.

Methods

Employees from a public city service (n = 179) were invited by e-mail to participate. Employees interested to request the advice (n = 112) were sent the website link, a personal login and password. The online advice was based on different aspects of the Theory of Planned Behaviour, Self-Determination Theory and Self-Regulation Theory. Logistic regressions were conducted to compare characteristics (gender, age, education, employment status, amount of sitting and psychosocial correlates of workplace sitting) of employees requesting the advice (n = 90, 80.4 %) with those who did not. Two weeks after visiting the website, 47 employees (52.2 %) completed an online acceptability questionnaire.

Results

Those with a high education were more likely to request the advice than those with a low education (OR = 2.4, CI = 1.0-5.8), and those with a part-time job were more likely to request the advice compared to full-time employees (OR = 2.9, CI = 1.2-7.1). The majority found the advice interesting (n = 36/47, 76.6 %), relevant (n = 33/47, 70.2 %) and motivating (n = 29/47, 61.7 %). Fewer employees believed the advice was practicable (n = 15/47, 31.9 %). After completing the advice, 58.0 % (n = 25/43) reported to have started interrupting their sitting and 32.6 % (n = 17/43) additionally intended to do so; 14.0 % (n = 6/43) reported to have reduced their sitting and another 51.2 % (n = 22/43) intended to do so.

Discussion

More efforts are needed to reach lower educated and full-time workers. Further research should examinethe effects of this intervention in a rigorous randomised controlled trial.

Conclusions

It is feasible to reach employees with this tool. Most of the employees who requested the advice found itacceptable and reported they changed their behaviour or intended to change it. Interrupting sittingappeared more achievable than reducing workplace sitting.

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work

BACKGROUND

The number of people working whilst seated at a desk keeps increasing worldwide. As sitting increases, occupational physical strain declines at the same time. This has contributed to increases in cardiovascular disease, obesity and diabetes. Therefore, reducing and breaking up the time that people spend sitting while at work is important for health.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects 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, Clinical trials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) search trial portal up to 14 February, 2014. We also searched reference lists of articles and contacted authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCTs), and quasi-randomised controlled trials of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) with a concurrent control group. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or objectively measured by means of an accelerometer coupled with an inclinometer. We considered energy expenditure, duration and number of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more, 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 included eight studies, four RCTs, three CBAs and one cRCT, with a total of 1125 participants. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (three studies), policy changes (one study) and information and counselling (four studies). No studies investigated the effect of treadmill desks, stepping devices, periodic breaks or standing or walking meetings. All the studies were at high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was very low to low. Half of the studies were from Australia and the other half from Europe, with none from low- or middle-income countries. Physical workplace changesWe found very low quality evidence that sit-stand desks with or without additional counselling reduced sitting time at work per workday at one week follow-up (MD -143 minutes (95% CI -184 to -102, one study, 31 participants) and at three months' follow-up (MD - 113 minutes, 95% CI -143 to -84, two studies, 61 participants) compared to no intervention. Total sitting time during the whole day decreased also with sit-stand desks compared to no intervention (MD -78 minutes, 95% CI -125 to -30, one study, 31 participants) as did the duration of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -52 minutes, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies, 74 participants). Sit-stand desks did not have a considerable effect on work performance and had an inconsistent effect on musculoskeletal symptoms and sick leave. Policy changesWalking strategies had no considerable effect on sitting at work (MD -16 minutes, 95% CI -54 to 23, one study, 179 participants, low quality evidence). Information and counsellingGuideline-based counselling by occupational physicians reduced sitting time at work (MD -28 minutes, 95% CI -54 to -2, one study, 396 participants, low quality evidence). There was no considerable effect on reduction in total sitting time during the whole day.Mindfulness training induced a non-significant reduction in workplace sitting time (MD -2 minutes, 95% CI -22 to 18) at six months' follow-up and at 12 months' follow-up (MD -16 minutes, 95% CI -45 to 12, one study, 257 participants, low quality evidence).There was an inconsistent effect of computer prompting on sitting time at work. One study found no considerable effect on sitting at work (MD -18 minutes, 95% CI -53 to 17, 28 participants, low quality evidence) at 10 days' follow-up, while another study reported a significant reduction in sitting at work (MD -55 minutes, 95% CI -96 to -14, 34 participants, low quality evidence) at 13 weeks' follow-up. Computer prompting software also led to a non-significant increase in energy expenditure at work (MD 278 calories/workday, 95% CI 0 to 556, one study, 34 participants, low quality evidence) at 13 weeks' follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present there is very low quality evidence that sit-stand desks can reduce sitting time at work, but the effects of policy changes and information and counselling are inconsistent. There is a need for high quality cluster-randomised trials to assess the effects of different types of interventions on objectively measured sitting time. There are many ongoing trials that might change these conclusions in the near future.

The prevalence and characteristics of low back pain among sitting workers in a Japanese manufacturing company

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a major public health problem and the most common cause of workers' disability, resulting in substantial economic burden in terms of workers' compensation and medical costs. Sitting is a recognized potential risk factor for developing LBP. Therefore, eliminating risk factors associated with working conditions and individual work capacity may be beneficial in preventing LBP in sitting workers. The purpose of this prospective cross-sectional study is to investigate the prevalence of LBP and examine risk factors that contribute to the development of LBP in sitting workers at an electronics manufacturing company.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was administered to all subjects to assess the prevalence of LBP persisting for at least 48 h during the recent week. Data on demographic characteristics and potential risk factors for LBP were collected at routine annual check-ups. Patients with LBP completed the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), which provided information on the attributes of LBP. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses examined the association between LBP and potential risk factors.

RESULTS

Of the 1,329 sitting workers, 201 (15.1 %) acknowledged experiencing LBP during the recent week. In female workers, weight and body mass index were significantly correlated with the RDQ score. Univariate analyses identified male sex, prior history of LBP, height ≥170 cm, and weight ≥70 kg as significant risk factors of LBP. Multivariate logistic regression analyses identified prior history of LBP and past history of lumbar spine surgery as significant risk factors of LBP.

CONCLUSIONS

This study characterized the prevalence and attributes of LBP in Japanese sitting workers and provided information about potential risk factors contributing to occurrence of LBP in the workplace.