Effect of a novel two-desk sit-to-stand workplace (ACTIVE OFFICE) on sitting time, performance and physiological parameters: protocol for a randomized control trial

Working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic, its effects on health, and recommendations: The pandemic and beyond

PURPOSE

We provide an overview of how to work from home during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and what measures should be taken to minimize the negative effects of working from during this time.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced an adaptation process for the whole world and working life. One of the most adaptation measures is working from home. Working from home comes with challenges and concerns but it also has favorable aspects.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

It is crucial to develop and implement best practices for working from home to maintain a good level of productivity, achieve the right level of work and life balance and maintain a good level of physical and mental health.

Medium-term effects of a two-desk sit/stand workstation on cognitive performance and workload for healthy people performing sedentary work: a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Implementing sit/stand workstations in sedentary work environments is a common way to reduce sedentary time, but their medium-term effect on cognitive performance is unclear. To address this circumstance, eighteen office workers participated in a two-arm, randomised controlled cross-over trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02825303), either working at a traditional (sit) or an interventional (sit/stand) workplace for 23 weeks. Cognitive performance (working speed, reaction time, concentration performance, accuracy), workload and relevant covariates (salivary cortisol level, heart rate, physical activity, sitting time) were measured pre- and post-intervention under laboratory conditions. MANOVA and RMANOVA results did not show differences in performance parameters and workload, respectively, between sit/stand and traditional workplace users. Differences in text editing accuracy and cortisol levels for sit/stand workstation users indicate potential connectivity to cognitive parameters which should be further examined with large-scale studies. Practitioner summary: Medium-term effects of working at sit/stand workstations on cognitive performance and workload are unexplored. This randomised controlled trial suggests that cognitive performance and workload are unaffected for sit/stand workstation users after 23 weeks of use. However, accuracy appeared to improve and physiological stress appeared to be altered. Abbreviations: BMI: body mass index; IPAQ: International physical activity questionnaire; MET: metabolic equivalent of task; MANOVA: multivariate ANOVA; NASA TLX: NASA task load index; RMANOVA: repeated measures ANOVA.

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.

Strategies to improve the implementation of workplace-based policies or practices targeting tobacco, alcohol, diet, physical activity and obesity

BACKGROUND

Given the substantial period of time adults spend in their workplaces each day, these provide an opportune setting for interventions addressing modifiable behavioural risk factors for chronic disease. Previous reviews of trials of workplace-based interventions suggest they can be effective in modifying a range of risk factors including diet, physical activity, obesity, risky alcohol use and tobacco use. However, such interventions are often poorly implemented in workplaces, limiting their impact on employee health. Identifying strategies that are effective in improving the implementation of workplace-based interventions has the potential to improve their effects on health outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of strategies for improving the implementation of workplace-based policies or practices targeting diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco use and alcohol use.Secondary objectives were to assess the impact of such strategies on employee health behaviours, including dietary intake, physical activity, weight status, and alcohol and tobacco use; evaluate their cost-effectiveness; and identify any unintended adverse effects of implementation strategies on workplaces or workplace staff.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases on 31 August 2017: CENTRAL; MEDLINE; MEDLINE In Process; the Campbell Library; PsycINFO; Education Resource Information Center (ERIC); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); and Scopus. We also handsearched all publications between August 2012 and September 2017 in two speciality journals: Implementation Science and Journal of Translational Behavioral Medicine. We conducted searches up to September 2017 in Dissertations and Theses, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the US National Institutes of Health Registry. We screened the reference lists of included trials and contacted authors to identify other potentially relevant trials. We also consulted experts in the field to identify other relevant research.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Implementation strategies were defined as strategies specifically employed to improve the implementation of health interventions into routine practice within specific settings. We included any trial with a parallel control group (randomised or non-randomised) and conducted at any scale that compared strategies to support implementation of workplace policies or practices targeting diet, physical activity, obesity, risky alcohol use or tobacco use versus no intervention (i.e. wait-list, usual practice or minimal support control) or another implementation strategy. Implementation strategies could include those identified by the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy such as quality improvement initiatives and education and training, as well as other strategies. Implementation interventions could target policies or practices directly instituted in the workplace environment, as well as workplace-instituted efforts encouraging the use of external health promotion services (e.g. gym membership subsidies).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors working in pairs independently performed citation screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment, resolving disagreements via consensus or a third reviewer. We narratively synthesised findings for all included trials by first describing trial characteristics, participants, interventions and outcomes. We then described the effect size of the outcome measure for policy or practice implementation. We performed meta-analysis of implementation outcomes for trials of comparable design and outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six trials, four of which took place in the USA. Four trials employed randomised controlled trial (RCT) designs. Trials were conducted in workplaces from the manufacturing, industrial and services-based sectors. The sample sizes of workplaces ranged from 12 to 114. Workplace policies and practices targeted included: healthy catering policies; point-of-purchase nutrition labelling; environmental supports for healthy eating and physical activity; tobacco control policies; weight management programmes; and adherence to guidelines for staff health promotion. All implementation interventions utilised multiple implementation strategies, the most common of which were educational meetings, tailored interventions and local consensus processes. Four trials compared an implementation strategy intervention with a no intervention control, one trial compared different implementation interventions, and one three-arm trial compared two implementation strategies with each other and a control. Four trials reported a single implementation outcome, whilst the other two reported multiple outcomes. Investigators assessed outcomes using surveys, audits and environmental observations. We judged most trials to be at high risk of performance and detection bias and at unclear risk of reporting and attrition bias.Of the five trials comparing implementation strategies with a no intervention control, pooled analysis was possible for three RCTs reporting continuous score-based measures of implementation outcomes. The meta-analysis found no difference in standardised effects (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.30; 164 participants; 3 studies; low certainty evidence), suggesting no benefit of implementation support in improving policy or practice implementation, relative to control. Findings for other continuous or dichotomous implementation outcomes reported across these five trials were mixed. For the two non-randomised trials examining comparative effectiveness, both reported improvements in implementation, favouring the more intensive implementation group (very low certainty evidence). Three trials examined the impact of implementation strategies on employee health behaviours, reporting mixed effects for diet and weight status (very low certainty evidence) and no effect for physical activity (very low certainty evidence) or tobacco use (low certainty evidence). One trial reported an increase in absolute workplace costs for health promotion in the implementation group (low certainty evidence). None of the included trials assessed adverse consequences. Limitations of the review included the small number of trials identified and the lack of consistent terminology applied in the implementation science field, which may have resulted in us overlooking potentially relevant trials in the search.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence regarding the effectiveness of implementation strategies for improving implementation of health-promoting policies and practices in the workplace setting is sparse and inconsistent. Low certainty evidence suggests that such strategies may make little or no difference on measures of implementation fidelity or different employee health behaviour outcomes. It is also unclear if such strategies are cost-effective or have potential unintended adverse consequences. The limited number of trials identified suggests implementation research in the workplace setting is in its infancy, warranting further research to guide evidence translation in this setting.

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.

Effect of alternating postures on cognitive performance for healthy people performing sedentary work

Prolonged sitting is a risk factor for several diseases and the prevalence of worksite-based interventions such as sit-to-stand workstations is increasing. Although their impact on sedentary behaviour has been regularly investigated, the effect of working in alternating body postures on cognitive performance is unclear. To address this uncertainty, 45 students participated in a two-arm, randomised controlled cross-over trial under laboratory conditions. Subjects executed validated cognitive tests (working speed, reaction time, concentration performance) either in sitting or alternating working postures on two separate days (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02863731). MANOVA results showed no significant difference in cognitive performance between trials executed in alternating, standing or sitting postures. Perceived workload did not differ between sitting and alternating days. Repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant learning effects regarding concentration performance and working speed for both days. These results suggest that working posture did not affect cognitive performance in the short term. Practitioner Summary: Prior reports indicated health-related benefits based on alternated (sit/stand) body postures. Nevertheless, their effect on cognitive performance is unknown. This randomised controlled trial showed that working in alternating body postures did not influence reaction time, concentration performance, working speed or workload perception in the short term.

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.