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

The effects of active workstations on reducing work-specific sedentary time in office workers: a network meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Active workstations have been proposed as a feasible approach for reducing occupational sedentary time. This study used a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess and compare the overall efficacy of active workstation interventions according to type and concomitant strategy for reducing work-specific sitting time in office workers.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from database inception until May 2022 to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of active workstations with or without concomitant strategies for reducing occupational sedentary time in office workers. The risk of bias of the RCTs included in this study was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook. An NMA with STATA 15.1 was used to construct a network diagram, league figures, and the final surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

A total of 23 eligible studies including eight different types of interventions with 1428 office workers were included. NMA results showed that compared to a typical desk, multicomponent intervention (standardized mean difference (SMD) =  - 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 2.17, - 0.82; SUCRA = 72.4%), sit-stand workstation + promotion (Reminders of rest breaks, posture variation, or incidental office activity) (SMD =  - 1.49; 95%CI - 2.42, - 0.55; SUCRA = 71.0%), treadmill workstation + promotion (SMD =  - 1.29; 95%CI - 2.51, - 0.07; SUCRA = 61.6%), and sit-stand workstation (SMD =  - 1.10, 95%CI - 1.64, - 0.56; SUCRA = 50.2%) were effective in reducing occupational sedentary time for office workers.

CONCLUSIONS

Multicomponent intervention, sit-stand workstation + promotion, treadmill workstation + promotion, and sit-stand workstation appear to be effective in reducing work-specific sedentary time for office workers. Furthermore, multicomponent interventions and active workstations + promotion better reduced work-specific sedentary time than active workstation alone. However, the overall certainty of the evidence was low.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Our study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); registration number: CRD42022344432.

Office workspace for an ageing workforce: A systematic review

BACKGROUND: With the ageing of the working population, it is becoming crucial empowering staff of all ages to perform at its best. To this end, organizations can act on the built environment, adapting the workspace to the changing characteristics of workers and using it as a tool for health promotion. OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of office workspace requirements to optimise the wellbeing and productivity of older workers. METHODS: The search, by Scopus, Web of Science core collection and Medline, produced 290 records. The screening process, according to the Prisma method, reduced the records to 13 included in the review. RESULTS: The results show the needs and preferences of the ageing workforce, such as personal control over the environment in terms of both comfort and use of space, as well as negative opinions on specific solutions, such as the extensive use of open offices and the introduction of shared workstations. The included studies report mainly subjective data, derived from interviews and questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: The review provides a first framework for acting on the office workspace to improve wellbeing and productivity of older workers. However, further studies, evidence-based and with subjective and objective measurements of specific solutions, are needed to develop guidelines for an inclusive workspace for all ages.

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.

Systematic Review of the Influence of Physical Work Environment on Office Workers' Physical Activity Behavior

BACKGROUND

Many American workers spend over 7 hours a day at work in primarily sedentary office work. Physical activity is a key aspect of optimizing health and preventing disease; yet, 80% of American adults do not meet the recommended guidelines for physical activity. In this systematic review, the relationship between physical work environment and physical activity among office workers was explored.

METHODS

Of the 321 studies screened, 26 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included for evaluation in this systematic review.

RESULTS

Of the 26 studies, four were cross-sectional studies, 14 were quasi-experimental studies, and eight were randomized control trials. Physical activity during the workday was measured using self-report surveys and electromechanical devices such as accelerometers. Physical work environments examined by the studies included different types of desks (n = 16), office arrangements (n = 5), and building design (n = 5). In nine studies, office environments and building work environments designed to promote activity using active design principles such as stairs and flexible workspaces were associated with increased physical activity. Sit-stand desks reduced overall sitting time, but had a minimal effect on physical activity.

CONCLUSION/APPLICATION TO PRACTICE

Offices and buildings designed for activity had the largest impact on physical activity among office workers. To increase physical activity in office workers, focus should be placed on opportunities to increase incidental movement that can increase physical activity throughout the workday. Occupational health nurses should advocate workspace designs that can increase physical activity in workers.

Workplace stress of occupational safety specialists in Croatia and Serbia

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies have shown that work often causes stress in employees and even in occupational safety experts. Occupational stress can lead to serious health consequences for employees. As the job of occupational safety experts is very responsible, they are more exposed to workplace stress and more vulnerable to its consequences. This study resulted with expertise on the work related stress of safety experts in Croatia and Serbia.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined workplace stress of occupational safety experts in Croatia and Serbia.

METHODS

Surveys were used to collect original data and statistical methods were used for data processing and analysis.

RESULTS

There was a correlation between the level of stress on safety expert's jobs and stress levels related to the status of safety experts as dependent variables and the organization profile related with safety experts' employment as independent variables. Stress of safety experts related to activities and the status of safety experts were of medium level.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for preventive protection from stress in this profession. Continuous education of safety experts plays a key role in stress prevention, not only for the safety experts but it also plays a key role in stress management throughout the organization.

Drivers of productivity: Being physically active increases yet sedentary bouts and lack of sleep decrease work ability

Physical behavior (ie, physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep) is a crucial lifestyle factor for preventing and managing diseases across the lifespan. However, less is known about potential work-related psychological and cognitive outcomes such as productivity. The present study examined within-person associations between physical behavior and self-perceived work ability. To investigate the degree to which physical behavior parameters influence self-perceived work ability in everyday life, we conducted an Ambulatory Assessment study in 103 university students over 5 days. Physical behavior was assessed continuously via a multi-sensor system. Self-perceived work ability was assessed repeatedly up to six times per day on smartphones. We employed multilevel modeling to analyze the within-person effects of physical behavior on self-perceived work ability. Physical activity intensity (MET) (β = 0.15 ± 0.06, t = 2.59, p = 0.012) and sit-to-stand transitions (β = 0.07 ± 0.03, t = 2.44, p = 0.015) were positively associated with self-perceived work ability. Sedentary bouts (≥20 min) (β = -0.21 ± 0.08, t = -2.74, p = 0.006) and deviation from a recommended sleep duration (ie, 8 h) (β = -0.1 ± 0.04, t = -2.38, p = 0.018) were negatively associated with self-perceived work ability. Exploratory analyses supported the robustness of our findings by comparing various time frames. Total sedentary time and sleep quality were not associated with self-perceived work ability. Regular sleep durations, breaking up sedentary time through sit-to-stand transitions, and higher intensities of physical activity may be important for the regulation of self-perceived work ability in university students' daily lives.

Exploration of individualized goals and ergonomic modifications to address sedentary behaviors and perceived health and well-being among office workers

BACKGROUND

Office workers spend significant time in sedentary behaviors. Exploration of interventions to address this concern is warranted.

OBJECTIVE

This study explored the impact of individualized goals and ergonomic modifications on sedentary behaviors and perceived health and well-being among office workers.

METHODS

A six-week, one-group, pre- and post-test design was utilized to assess sedentary behaviors and perceptions of health and well-being among office workers using the RAND 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ), actigraphy, and a workstation assessment.

RESULTS

Statistically significant improvements were noted from pre- to post-test on the RAND SF-36 for energy/fatigue (p = 0.000) and emotional well-being (p = 0.049) and subjective sleep quality using the PSQI (p = 0.005). Participants (n = 17) could set up to two goals related to health and well-being. A majority of the 31 established goals were met: increase physical activity (n = 11/16), reduce sedentary behavior (n = 8/11), and improve personal health (n = 3/4).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of individualized goals and ergonomic modifications is effective for addressing perceived health and well-being among office workers. However, limited statistical significance was found regarding the impact of these interventions on sedentary behaviors or activity levels.

Pain symptoms are reported earlier than quantitative measures of low back pain during prolonged standing

BACKGROUND

Along with quantitative measures, pain symptoms may help inform early interventions to prevent prolonged standing induced low back pain (LBP); however, the relationship between quantitative and qualitative measures has not been assessed.

OBJECTIVE

Determine the relationship between qualitative and quantitative measures of pain development during prolonged standing induced LBP development.

METHODS

Thirty-five participants performed two-hours of standing. A visual analog scale (VAS) and the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire were used to assess the participant's LBP every 7.5-minutes. Participants were classified as a pain developer (PD) based on VAS scores or three consecutive pain symptom reports.

RESULTS

Pain symptom reports occurred 31.3 (±24.8) minutes earlier than the VAS reports. Eight participants (44%) were non-PDs with the VAS and PDs with the symptom method (p = 0.0047).

CONCLUSIONS

A subset of participants who were not categorized as LBP developers during prolonged standing using the VAS method still report LBP symptoms. The inclusion of pain symptom reporting could provide additional information for practitioners when identifying individuals who would benefit from early interventions for standing induced LBP.

The occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire (OSPAQ): a validation study with accelerometer-assessed measures

Background

The Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire (OSPAQ) was developed as an easy-to-use instrument for self-reported assessment of percentage sitting, standing, walking, and performing heavy labour in a workplace setting. This study aimed to evaluate the concurrent validity of all dimensions of the OSPAQ compared to accelerometer-assessed measures of occupational physical activities in a mixed sample of sedentary and physically active professions.

Methods

Data from the Flemish Employees’ Physical Activity (FEPA) study were used, including employees from the service and production sector. All participants filled in a questionnaire, underwent clinical measurements, and wore two Axivity AX3 accelerometers for at least 2 consecutive working days. Intraclass (ICC) and Spearman rho correlations (r) were analyzed to assess concurrent validity.

Results

The sample included 401 workers (16% sedentary profession) with a mean age of 39.2 (± 11) years. Concurrent validity was good and moderate for assessing percentage of sitting (ICC = 0.84; r = 0.53), and standing (ICC = 0.64; r = 0.53), respectively. The concurrent validity for walking was weak to moderate (ICC = 0.50; r = 0.49), and weak for performing heavy labour (ICC = 0.28; r = 0.35). Stronger validity scores were found in sedentary professions for occupational sitting and standing. In physically active professions, an underestimation of self-reported sitting and standing was found, and an overestimation of self-reported walking and heavy labour. No significant self-reported over- or underestimation was found for sitting and heavy labour in sedentary professions, but an underestimation of self-reported standing and an overestimation of self-reported walking was observed.

Conclusions

The OSPAQ has acceptable measurement properties for assessing occupational sitting and standing. Accelerometer-assessed measures of occupational walking and heavy labour are recommended, since a poor concurrent validity was found for both.

Physical activity and personal factors associated with nurse resilience in intensive care units

AIM AND OBJECTIVES

To assess intensive care nurses' resilience and identify associated personal factors and physical activity behaviours using a job demands-recovery framework.

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is inconsistent evidence as to whether nurse resilience is associated with personal factors or with physical activity at work or during leisure time.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study was conducted with nurses from four intensive care units in Auckland, New Zealand.

METHODS

An online survey was conducted to collect nurses' personal information and assess their resilience levels using the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 25. Participants were nurses working at least 32 hr fortnightly and providing direct patient care. Physical activity was objectively measured using a pair of accelerometers worn on the back and thigh over four consecutive days (two workdays followed by two nonworkdays). Bivariable and multivariable regression were used to identify personal factors and physical activity behaviours associated with resilience (followed the STROBE checklist).

RESULTS

A total of 93 nurses were included in the study. The participants' average resilience level was low. Resilience was positively associated with the objectively measured physical job demands factors: occupational physical activity, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity at work and dynamic standing at work. Resilience was negatively associated with one objectively measured recovery factor: sleep during leisure time. In multivariable modelling, being married and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity at work were positively associated with resilience, while not having religious beliefs and sleep during leisure time were negatively associated with resilience.

CONCLUSIONS

Resilient nurses have a greater tolerance to high physical activity at work and lower sleep duration during leisure time. Strategies are needed to improve intensive care nurses' resilience levels.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Results may help managers gain a better understanding of the ICU nurses' characteristics associated with resilience, leading them to develop strategies for improving ICU nurse resilience.

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.

The effect of sit-stand schedules on office work productivity: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Sit-stand workstations have been introduced in the workplaces to address the adverse sedentary effect inherent to typical office jobs. Existing field or laboratory studies showed that standing interventions are not a detriment to work productivity or performance. The effect of gradient standing proportion on these measures is still unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The current naturalistic pilot study aimed to examine the controlled sit-stand ratio effect on office performances.

METHODS

Eleven musculoskeletal symptom free office employees from a large government agency volunteered in this study. They were all equipped with electronic sit-stand desks. Computer usage (N=11) and productivity (N=3) were collected using software and organizational metrics, respectively, for four typical workdays of four different sit-stand ratios (7 : 1, 3 : 1, 2 : 1, and 1 : 1).

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant schedule effects on any computer usage measures. While not significant, time using computer, keystrokes, word count, and keyboard errors were all less as standing time increased. Sit-stand ratio and job productivity did not observe a clear cause and effect relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

The amount of time spent standing in typical office jobs might not affect computer usage and productivity. Further study with a larger sample is needed for a stronger evidence.

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.

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 .

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 effects of introducing electric adjustable height desks in an office setting on workplace physical activity levels: A randomised control field trial

BACKGROUND

Electric adjustable height desks (EAHD) have been promoted as an opportunity for desk based workers to stand at work but there is limited evidence that they have an effect on light physical activity.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective was to determine if there would be a change in light physical activity with the introduction of EAHD. The secondary objective was to assess if there was an associated change in leisure time activity.

METHODS

Activity levels were measured by step counts, self-reported activity levels and pre- and post-trial recall levels. Statistical analysis of the data was performed with the software R. Generalised linear models were fitted to the data. A Poisson regression was used for count data. Statistical hypotheses were deemed significant if their p values were less than 0.05.

RESULTS

There was a significant (p < 0.001) effect on step counts associated with allocation of EAHD and a significant (p < 0.001) increase in self-reported activity for the Intervention (EAHD) group. Having an EAHD was associated with increased activity during leisure (p = 0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

Activity levels, especially light physical activity, were significantly increased with the allocation of an electric adjustable height desk. This pilot study showed that the environmental change of introduction of electric adjustable height desks into an office workplace can increase physical activity and reduce sitting durations. There is limited evidence that the increase in work activity has a positive impact on leisure time activity.

Worker acceptability of the Pennington Pedal Desk™ occupational workstation alternative

BACKGROUND

Active workstation alternatives (e.g., treadmill desks and pedal desks) have the potential to elevate workplace energy expenditure by replacing occupational sedentary behavior with opportunities to generate low-intensity non-exercise physical activity, but only to the extent that workers find them acceptable and congruent with their primary working tasks and therefore can frequently use them for extended periods of time.

OBJECTIVE

To assess workers' acceptability of the Pennington Pedal Desk™.

METHODS

Full-time sedentary workers (N = 42; 76% female; mean+SD age 39.6±11.3 years; BMI 25.7±5.4 kg/m2) used the pedal desk for 15 minutes while they: 1) searched the internet, 2) composed an email, and 3) completed acceptability ratings using an online Likert scale anchored from 1/strongly disagree to 5/strongly agree. Garmin Vector power meter pedals and EDGE 510 GPS bike computer (Garmin ®, USA) continuously captured revolutions per minute (RPM) and power.

RESULTS

Participants indicated that they would use the pedal desk for 4 (median) hours per work day and 97.6% of participants were somewhat or completely confident that they could type proficiently while using the pedal desk. Participants pedaled at 54.8±11.2 RPM and 23.1±8.6 watts (mean+SD).

CONCLUSIONS

Participants rated the Pennington Pedal Desk™ workstation positively and indicated potential for extended daily use.

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.

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.

Physical Activity and Psychological Well-Being in Older University Office Workers: Survey Findings

Prolonged sitting time has been reported among university workers which can have adverse health effects. The aim of this study was to examine the sitting time, physical activity, and psychological well-being reported by older university office workers. An online self-reported survey was distributed to all office workers 55 years and older at one university in Australia. Sixty-six office workers were recruited. They reported an average sitting time of 7.5 hours per day on weekdays. In all, 72.7% of the sample reported both moderate and high physical activity levels. A high percentage of the office workers reported depression (25.8%) and anxiety (12.1%). Lower education levels were significantly related to higher perceived stress and more depressive symptomatology ( p = .03 and .02, respectively). Significant associations were found between stress, depression, and anxiety ( p < .001) among this group of workers.

The development, implementation and evaluation of interventions to reduce workplace sitting: a qualitative systematic review and evidence-based operational framework

BACKGROUND

Prolonged sitting is associated with increased risks of cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, some cancers, musculoskeletal disorders and premature mortality. Workplaces contribute to a large proportion of daily sitting time, particularly among office-based workers. Interventions to reduce workplace sitting therefore represent important public health initiatives. Previous systematic reviews suggest such interventions can be effective but have reported wide variations. Further, there is uncertainty as to whether effectiveness in controlled trials can be replicated when implemented outside the research setting. The aims of this review are to identify factors important for the implementation of workplace sitting interventions and to translate these findings into a useful operational framework to support the future implementation of such interventions.

METHODS

A qualitative systematic review was conducted. Four health and social science databases were searched for studies set in the workplace, with office-based employees and with the primary aim of reducing workplace sitting. Extracted data were primarily from author descriptions of interventions and their implementation. Inductive thematic analysis and synthesis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Forty studies met the inclusion criteria. Nine descriptive themes were identified from which emerged three higher-order analytical themes, which related to the development, implementation and evaluation of workplace sitting interventions. Key findings included: the importance of grounding interventions in theory; utilising participative approaches during intervention development and implementation; and conducting comprehensive process and outcome evaluations. There was a general under-reporting of information relating to the context within which workplace sitting interventions were implemented, such as details of local organisation processes and structures, as well as the wider political and economic landscape, which if present would aid the translation of knowledge into "real-world" settings.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provided the basis for an operational framework, which is a representation of all nine descriptive themes and three higher-order analytical themes, to support workplace sitting intervention development, implementation and evaluation. Once tested and refined, this framework has the potential to be incorporated into a practical toolkit, which could be used by a range of organisations to develop, implement and evaluate their own interventions to reduce workplace sitting time amongst staff.

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.

Implementation of Active Workstations in University Libraries-A Comparison of Portable Pedal Exercise Machines and Standing Desks

Sedentary behaviors are an important issue worldwide, as prolonged sitting time has been associated with health problems. Recently, active workstations have been developed as a strategy to counteract sedentary behaviors. The present study examined the rationale and perceptions of university students’ and staff following their first use of an active workstation in library settings. Ninety-nine volunteers completed a self-administered questionnaire after using a portable pedal exercise machine (PPEM) or a standing desk (SD). Computer tasks were performed on the SD (p = 0.001) and paperwork tasks on a PPEM (p = 0.037) to a larger extent. Men preferred the SD and women chose the PPEM (p = 0.037). The appreciation of the PPEM was revealed to be higher than for the SD, due to its higher scores for effective, useful, functional, convenient, and comfortable dimensions. Younger participants (<25 years of age) found the active workstation more pleasant to use than older participants, and participants who spent between 4 to 8 h per day in a seated position found active workstations were more effective and convenient than participants sitting fewer than 4 h per day. The results of this study are a preliminary step to better understanding the feasibility and acceptability of active workstations on university campuses.

Can Building Design Impact Physical Activity? A Natural Experiment

BACKGROUND

Workplace design can impact workday physical activity (PA) and sedentary time. The purpose of this study was to evaluate PA behavior among university employees before and after moving into a new building.

METHODS

A pre-post, experimental versus control group study design was used. PA data were collected using surveys and accelerometers from university faculty and staff. Accelerometry was used to compare those moving into the new building (MOVERS) and those remaining in existing buildings (NONMOVERS) and from a control group (CONTROLS).

RESULTS

Survey results showed increased self-reported PA for MOVERS and NONMOVERS. All 3 groups significantly increased in objectively collected daily energy expenditure and steps per day. The greatest steps per day increase was in CONTROLS (29.8%) compared with MOVERS (27.5%) and NONMOVERS (15.9%), but there were no significant differences between groups at pretest or posttest.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-reported and objectively measured PA increased from pretest to posttest in all groups; thus, the increase cannot be attributed to the new building. Confounding factors may include contamination bias due to proximity of control site to experimental site and introduction of a university PA tracking contest during postdata collection. Methodology and results can inform future studies on best design practices for increasing PA.

Reducing occupational sitting: Workers' perspectives on participation in a multi-component intervention

BACKGROUND

Office workers spend much of their time sitting, which is now understood to be a risk factor for several chronic diseases. This qualitative study examined participants' perspectives following their involvement in a cluster randomised controlled trial of a multi-component intervention targeting prolonged workplace sitting (Stand Up Victoria). The intervention incorporated a sit-stand workstation, individual health coaching and organisational support strategies. The aim of the study was to explore the acceptability of the intervention, barriers and facilitators to reducing workplace sitting, and perceived effects of the intervention on workplace culture, productivity and health-related outcomes.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews (n = 21 participants) and two focus groups (n = 7) were conducted with intervention participants at the conclusion of the 12 month trial and thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Questions covered intervention acceptability, overall impact, barriers and facilitators to reducing workplace sitting, and perceived impact on productivity and workplace culture.

RESULTS

Overall, participants had positive intervention experiences, perceiving that reductions in workplace sitting were associated with improved health and well-being with limited negative impact on work performance. While sit-stand workstations appeared to be the primary drivers of change, workstation design and limited suitability of standing for some job tasks and situations were perceived as barriers to their use. Social support from team leaders and other participants was perceived to facilitate behavioural changes and a shift in norms towards increased acceptance of standing in the workplace.

CONCLUSIONS

Multi-component interventions to reduce workplace sitting, incorporating sit-stand workstations, are acceptable and feasible; however, supportive social and environmental conditions are required to support participant engagement. Best practice approaches to reduce workplace sitting should address the multiple levels of influence on behaviour, including factors that may act as barriers to behavioural change.

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.