Search

Background: Digital interventions are potential tools for reducing and limiting occupational sedentary behaviour (SB) in sedentary desk-based jobs. Given the harmful effects of sitting too much and sitting for too long while working, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the effectiveness of workplace interventions, that incorporated digital elements, to reduce the time spent in SB in office workers. Methods: Randomised control trials that evaluated the implementation of workplace interventions that incorporated digital elements for breaking and limiting SB among desk-based jobs were identified by literature searches in six electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO and PEDro) published up to 2023. Studies were included if total and/or occupational SB were assessed. Only studies that reported pre- and postintervention mean differences and standard deviations or standard errors for both intervention arms were used for the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5; Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Risk of bias was assessed using the Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields QUALSYST tool. Results: Nineteen studies were included in the systematic review. The most employed digital elements were information delivery and mediated organisational support and social influences. Multicomponent, information, and counselling interventions measuring total and/or occupational/nonoccupational SB time by self-report or via device-based measures were reported. Multicomponent interventions were the most represented. Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis, which presented a reduction of 29.9 (95% CI: -45.2, -14.5) min/8 h workday in SB (overall effect: Z = 3.81). Conclusions: Multicomponent interventions, using a wide range of digital features, have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing time spent in SB at the workplace among desk-based employees. However, due to hybrid work (i.e., work in the office and home) being a customary mode of work for many employees, it is important for future studies to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of these interventions in the evolving work landscape. Trial registration: The review protocol was registered in the Prospero database (CRD42022377366). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To enhance the impact of interventions, it is important to understand how intervention engagement relates to study outcomes. We report on the level of implementation and engagement with the SMART Work & Life (SWAL) programme (delivered with (SWAL plus desk) and without a height-adjustable desk (SWAL)) and explore the effects of different levels of this on change in daily sitting time in comparison to the control group. Methods: The extent of intervention delivery by workplace champions and the extent of engagement by champions and participants (staff) with each intervention activity was assessed by training attendance logs, workplace champion withdrawal dates, intervention activities logs and questionnaires. These data were used to assess whether a cluster met defined criteria for low, medium, or high implementation and engagement or none of these. Mixed effects linear regression analyses tested whether change in sitting time varied by: (i) the number of intervention activities implemented and engaged with, and (ii) the percentage of implementation and engagement with all intervention strategies. Results: Workplace champions were recruited for all clusters, with 51/52 (98%) attending training. Overall, 12/27 (44.4%) SWAL and 9/25 (36.0%) SWAL plus desk clusters implemented all main intervention strategies. Across remaining clusters, the level of intervention implementation varied. Those in the SWAL (n = 8 (29.6%) clusters, 80 (32.1%) participants) and SWAL plus desk (n = 5 (20.0%) clusters, 41 (17.1%) participants) intervention groups who implemented and engaged with the most intervention strategies and had the highest percentage of cluster implementation and engagement with all intervention strategies sat for 30.9 (95% CI -53.9 to -7.9, p = 0.01) and 75.6 (95% CI -103.6 to -47.7, p < 0.001) fewer minutes/day respectively compared to the control group at 12 month follow up. These differences were larger than the complete case analysis. The differences in sitting time observed for the medium and low levels were similar to the complete case analysis. Conclusions: Most intervention strategies were delivered to some extent across the clusters although there was large variation. Superior effects for sitting reduction were seen for those intervention groups who implemented and engaged with the most intervention components and had the highest level of cluster implementation and engagement. Trial Registration: ISRCTN11618007. Registered on 24 January 2018. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTNISRCTN11618007. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A cluster randomised controlled trial demonstrated the effectiveness of the SMART Work & Life (SWAL) behaviour change intervention, with and without a height-adjustable desk, for reducing sitting time in desk-based workers. Staff within organisations volunteered to be trained to facilitate delivery of the SWAL intervention and act as workplace champions. This paper presents the experiences of these champions on the training and intervention delivery, and from participants on their intervention participation. Methods: Quantitative and qualitative feedback from workplace champions on their training session was collected. Participants provided quantitative feedback via questionnaires at 3 and 12 month follow-up on the intervention strategies (education, group catch ups, sitting less challenges, self-monitoring and prompts, and the height-adjustable desk [SWAL plus desk group only]). Interviews and focus groups were also conducted at 12 month follow-up with workplace champions and participants respectively to gather more detailed feedback. Transcripts were uploaded to NVivo and the constant comparative approach informed the analysis of the interviews and focus groups. Results: Workplace champions rated the training highly with mean scores ranging from 5.3/6 to 5.7/6 for the eight parts. Most participants felt the education increased their awareness of the health consequences of high levels of sitting (SWAL: 90.7%; SWAL plus desk: 88.2%) and motivated them to change their sitting time (SWAL: 77.5%; SWAL plus desk: 85.77%). A high percentage of participants (70%) reported finding the group catch up session helpful and worthwhile. However, focus groups highlighted mixed responses to the group catch-up sessions, sitting less challenges and self-monitoring intervention components. Participants in the SWAL plus desk group felt that having a height-adjustable desk was key in changing their behaviour, with intrinsic as well as time based factors reported as key influences on the height-adjustable desk usage. In both intervention groups, participants reported a range of benefits from the intervention including more energy, less fatigue, an increase in focus, alertness, productivity and concentration as well as less musculoskeletal problems (SWAL plus desk group only). Work-related, interpersonal, personal attributes, physical office environment and physical barriers were identified as barriers when trying to sit less and move more. Conclusions: Workplace champion and participant feedback on the intervention was largely positive but it is clear that different behaviour change strategies worked for different people indicating that a 'one size fits all' approach may not be appropriate for this type of intervention. The SWAL intervention could be tested in a broader range of organisations following a few minor adaptations based on the champion and participant feedback. Trial registration: ISCRCTN registry (ISRCTN11618007). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This paper presents the mixed methods process evaluation of the randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the Structured Health Intervention For Truckers (SHIFT), a multi-component intervention targeting physical activity and positive lifestyle behaviours in a cohort of 382 truck drivers in the UK. The SHIFT RCT found a significant difference in daily steps between intervention and control groups at 6-months in favour of the intervention participants. Methods: SHIFT was evaluated within a cluster-RCT and involved 25 transport sites (12 intervention and 13 control sites). Intervention components included an education session, Fitbit, text messages, and cab workout equipment. Participants completed questionnaires at baseline and 6-months follow-up. Semi-structured focus groups/interviews were conducted with drivers (n = 19) and managers (n = 18) from each site, after completion of the final follow-up health assessment (16-18 months post-randomisation). Questionnaires and interviews collected information on fidelity, dose, context, implementation, barriers, sustainability, and contamination. Results: Questionnaire and interview data from intervention participants indicated favourable attitudes towards SHIFT, specifically towards the Fitbit with a high proportion of drivers reporting regularly using it (89.1%). 79.2% of intervention participants attended the education session, which was deemed useful for facilitating improvements in knowledge and behaviour change, dietary changes were predominantly recalled. Despite not being part of the intervention, participants reported that feedback from the health assessments motivated them to change aspects of their lifestyle (intervention = 91.1%, control = 67.5%). The cab workout equipment was used less and spoken unfavourably of in the interviews. The main barriers to a healthy lifestyle at work were reported as long hours and irregular shift patterns. The most suggested improvement for the intervention was more frequent contact with drivers. Managers were positive about the objectives of SHIFT, however almost all mentioned the challenges related to implementation, specifically in smaller sites. Conclusions: Overall, SHIFT was predominantly implemented as intended, with minimal discrepancies seen between the delivery and protocol. Having said this, transport sites each have distinct characteristics, which may require adaptations to individual settings to encourage participation. Managers and drivers reported enthusiasm and necessity for SHIFT to be included in future Certificate of Professional Competence training. Trial registration: ISRCTN10483894 (date registered: 01/03/2017). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prompting employees to swap their usual lunches for lower-energy alternatives may help align energy intake with public health recommendations. We tested the effect of offering lower-energy swaps with and without physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) information on the energy of lunches pre-ordered in an online hypothetical workplace canteen. Methods: UK employed adults (n = 2,150) were invited to hypothetically pre-order their lunch from the canteen through a custom-made online platform. They were randomised 1:1:1 to: (i) control: no swaps offered; (ii) lower-energy swaps offered; or (iii) lower-energy swaps offered with PACE information. The primary outcome was the total energy ordered using analysis of covariance and controlling for the energy content of the initial items ordered. Secondary outcomes were swap acceptance rate and intervention acceptability. Results: Participants were 54% female, had a mean age of 36.8 (SD = 11.6) and a BMI of 26.3 (SD = 5.6). Compared with an average 819 kcal energy ordered in the control, both the swaps and swaps + PACE interventions significantly reduced average energy ordered by 47 kcal (95% CI: -82 to -13, p = 0.003) and 66 kcal (95% CI: -100 to -31, p < 0.001), respectively. Compared with offering swaps only, the swaps + PACE intervention led to significantly higher swap acceptance (OR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.27 to 2.09, p < 0.001) but did not significantly reduce energy ordered (-19 kcal, 95% CI: -53 to 16, p = 0.591). About 65% and 16% of intervention participants found the swap interventions acceptable and unacceptable, respectively, with the swaps + PACE intervention being considered more acceptable than swaps only (OR: 1.32, 95%CI: 1.09 to 1.60, p < 0.004). Conclusion: Offering lower-energy swaps with or without PACE information reduced the energy of pre-ordered lunches experimentally. Both interventions hold promise for reducing the energy of purchased foods and drinks. Trial Registration As Predicted reference number: 56358, 22/01/21, https://aspredicted.org/pw2qr.pdf [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To identify social ecological correlates of objectively measured workplace sedentary behavior. Methods: Participants from 24 worksites - across academic, industrial, and government sectors - wore an activPAL-micro accelerometer for 7-days (Jan-Nov 2016). Work time was segmented using daily logs. Sedentary behavior outcomes included time spent sitting, standing, in light intensity physical activity (LPA, stepping cadence <100 steps/min), and in prolonged sitting bouts (>30 min). Outcomes were standardized to an 8 h work day. Two electronic surveys were completed to derive individual (job type and work engagement), cultural (lunch away from the desk, walking at lunch and face-to-face interaction), physical (personal printer and office type) and organizational (sector) factors. Mixed-model analyses with worksite-level clustering were performed to examine multi-level associations. Secondary analyses examined job type and sector as moderators of these associations. All models were adjusted for age, race/ethnicity and gender. Results: Participants (N = 478; 72% female; age: 45.0 ±11.3 years; 77.8% non-Hispanic white) wore the activPAL-micro for 90.2 ± 15.5% of the reported workday. Walking at lunch was positively associated with LPA (5.0 ± 0.5 min/8 h, P < 0. 001). Regular face-to-face interaction was negatively associated with prolonged sitting (-11.3 ± 4.8 min/8 h, P < 0.05). Individuals in private offices sat more (20.1 ± 9.1 min/8 h, P < 0.05), stood less (-21.5 ± 8.8 min/8 h, P < 0.05), and engaged in more prolonged sitting (40.9 ±11.2 min/8 h, P < 0.001) than those in public office space. These associations were further modified by job type and sector. Conclusions: Work-specific individual, cultural, physical and organizational factors are associated with workplace sedentary behavior. Associations vary by job type and sector and should be considered in the design of workplace interventions to reduce sedentary behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study examined whether specific worksite supports for physical activity (PA) were associated with total and domain-specific PA. Methods: A cross-sectional, telephone-based study was conducted in four Missouri, USA, metropolitan areas in 2012 and 2013. Outcome variables included total PA and sub-domains (leisure, work, travel) measured using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Logistic regression determined odds of meeting PA recommendations, given access to and use of 18 unique PA worksite supports. A subsample of 119 participants also wore hip accelerometry for seven consecutive days and maintained a wear-time diary. Access to worksite supports were associated with odds of meeting objective moderate and vigorous (MV) PA above 150 min per week. Results: Among 2013 survey participants, meeting PA recommendations while performing work-related tasks was significantly associated with several supports (e.g., walking maps, stair prompts), as was meeting recommendations during travel (e.g., flextime for PA, incentives for public transportation, walking/bicycling to work). Access to 11 worksite supports increased odds of meeting PA recommendations through leisure-time PA; five supports were associated with total PA. There were significant differences between access to and use of supports. Using objective MVPA, access to worksite challenges and bike storage were significantly associated with five and three times greater odds of meeting 150 min of MVPA per week, respectively. Conclusions: Worksite wellness plans are increasing across the US and employers are eager for evidence-based supports for increasing PA. This study provides insights into the utility of multiple worksite supports for PA to increase odds that employees meet PA recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Stand Up Victoria multi-component intervention successfully reduced workplace sitting time in both the short (three months) and long (12 months) term. To further understand how this intervention worked, we aimed to assess the impact of the intervention on four social-cognitive constructs, and examined whether these constructs mediated intervention effects on workplace sitting time at 3 and 12 months post-baseline. Methods: Two hundred and thirty one office-based workers (14 worksites, single government employer) were randomised to intervention or control conditions by worksite. The intervention comprised organisational, environmental, and individual level elements. Participant characteristics and social-cognitive constructs (perceived behavioural control, barrier self-efficacy, perceived organisational norms and knowledge) were measured through a self-administered online survey at baseline, 3 months and 12 months. Workplace sitting time (min/8 h day) was measured with the activPAL3 device. Single multi-level mediation models were performed for each construct at both time points. Results: There were significant intervention effects at 3 months on perceived behavioural control, barrier self-efficacy and perceived organisational norms. Effects on perceived organisational norms were not significant at 12 months. Perceived behavioural control significantly mediated intervention effects at 3 months, accounting for a small portion of the total effect (indirect effect: -8.6 min/8 h day, 95% CI: -18.5, -3.6 min; 7.5% of total effect). At 12 months, barrier self-efficacy significantly mediated the intervention effects on workplace sitting time (indirect effect: -10.3 min/8 h day, 95% CI: -27.3, -2.2; 13.9% of total effect). No significant effects were observed for knowledge at either time point. Conclusions: Strategies that aim to increase workers' perceived control and self-efficacy over their sitting time may be helpful components of sedentary behaviour interventions in the workplace. However, social-cognitive factors only partially explain variation in workplace sitting reduction. Understanding the importance of other levels of influence (particularly interpersonal and environmental) for initiating and maintaining workplace sedentary behaviour change will be informative for intervention development and refinement. Trial registration: This study was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials register (ACTRN12611000742976) on 15 July 2011. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Office workers engage in high levels of sitting time. Effective, context-specific, and scalable strategies are needed to support widespread sitting reduction. This study aimed to evaluate organisational-support strategies alone or in combination with an activity tracker to reduce sitting in office workers. Methods: From one organisation, 153 desk-based office workers were cluster-randomised (by team) to organisational support only (e.g., manager support, emails; 'Group ORG', 9 teams, 87 participants), or organisational support plus LUMOback activity tracker ('Group ORG + Tracker', 9 teams, 66 participants). The waist-worn tracker provided real-time feedback and prompts on sitting and posture. ActivPAL3 monitors were used to ascertain primary outcomes (sitting time during work- and overall hours) and other activity outcomes: prolonged sitting time (≥30 min bouts), time between sitting bouts, standing time, stepping time, and number of steps. Health and work outcomes were assessed by questionnaire. Changes within each group (three- and 12 months) and differences between groups were analysed by linear mixed models. Missing data were multiply imputed. Results: At baseline, participants (46 % women, 23-58 years) spent (mean ± SD) 74.3 ± 9.7 % of their workday sitting, 17.5 ± 8.3 % standing and 8.1 ± 2.7 % stepping. Significant (p < 0.05) reductions in sitting time (both work and overall) were observed within both groups, but only at 12 months. For secondary activity outcomes, Group ORG significantly improved in work prolonged sitting, time between sitting bouts and standing time, and overall prolonged sitting time (12 months), and in overall standing time (three- and 12 months); while Group ORG + Tracker, significantly improved in work prolonged sitting, standing, stepping and overall standing time (12 months). Adjusted for confounders, the only significant between-group differences were a greater stepping time and step count for Group ORG + Tracker relative to Group ORG (+20.6 min/16 h day, 95 % CI: 3.1, 38.1, p = 0.021; +846.5steps/16 h day, 95 % CI: 67.8, 1625.2, p = 0.033) at 12 months. Observed changes in health and work outcomes were small and not statistically significant. Conclusions: Organisational-support strategies with or without an activity tracker resulted in improvements in sitting, prolonged sitting and standing; adding a tracker enhanced stepping changes. Improvements were most evident at 12 months, suggesting the organisational-support strategies may have taken time to embed within the organisation. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12614000252617. Registered 10 March 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Physical activity guidelines state that adults should engage in at least 150 min of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per week to benefit health. A high proportion of adults in England fail to reach this target. Accurate knowledge of MVPA guidelines could influence the amount and quality of MVPA engaged in by adults. This study aimed to determine knowledge of the MVPA guideline within a large sample of working adults in England and identify individual and workplace-related predictors of knowledge. Methods: 10,992 adults completed an online survey which included questions on demographics, knowledge of the MVPA guideline and workplace predictors for physical activity. Multinomial logistic regression identified predictors of underestimating, overestimating or not knowing the MVPA guideline relative to accurately reporting the guideline for males and females separately. Results: Respondents were 37 % male, 95 % White, 63 % with a degree or higher, and had a mean age of 38.9 ± 11 years. The MVPA guideline was accurately reported by 15 % of adults while 13.8 % overestimated, 8.9 % underestimated and 62.3 % failed to provide any estimate of the guideline. Low education predicted underestimation (females: OR = 0.36, 95 % CI 0.17, 0.80) and not knowing (males: OR = 0.37, 95 % CI 0.14, 0.96; females: OR = 0.36, 95 % CI 0.19, 0.69). Ethnicity was a significant predictor for females only (OR 3.55, 95 % CI 1.46, 8.63; OR 4.03, 95 % CI 1.58, 10.27; OR 3.73, 95 % CI 1.67, 8.33). Employer support for physical activity was a significant predictor of accurate knowledge of the MVPA guideline for both males (underestimation: OR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.40, 1.00; 'don't know': OR = 0.71, 95 % CI 0.51, 1.00) and females (overestimation: OR = 0.72, 95 % CI 0.53, 0.97; underestimation: OR = 0.66, 95 % CI 0.47, 0.92; 'don't know': OR = 0.60, 95 % CI 0.47, 0.76). Conclusions: Knowledge of the MVPA guideline within working adults in England is low. Employers should play a role in using targeted strategies to increase knowledge as employer support-related factors may influence knowledge of the MVPA guideline. Employers who assert strategies to promote physical activity and encourage employees who have responsibility for promoting health to educate their colleagues may help improve the MVPA knowledge of their employees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To reverse the global epidemic of physical inactivity that is responsible for more than 5 million deaths per year, many groups recommend creating “activity-friendly environments.” Such environments may have other benefits, beyond facilitating physical activity, but these potential co-benefits have not been well described. The purpose of the present paper is to explore a wide range of literature and conduct an initial summary of evidence on co-benefits of activityfriendly environments. An extensive but non-systematic review of scientific and “gray” literature was conducted. Five physical activity settings were defined: parks/open space/trails, urban design, transportation, schools, and workplaces/ buildings. Several evidence-based activity-friendly features were identified for each setting. Six potential outcomes/ co-benefits were searched: physical health, mental health, social benefits, safety/injury prevention, environmental sustainability, and economics. A total of 418 higher-quality findings were summarized. The overall summary indicated 22 of 30 setting by outcome combinations showed “strong” evidence of co-benefits. Each setting had strong evidence of at least three co-benefits, with only one occurrence of a net negative effect. All settings showed the potential to contribute to environmental sustainability and economic benefits. Specific environmental features with the strongest evidence of multiple co-benefits were park proximity, mixed land use, trees/greenery, accessibility and street connectivity, building design, and workplace physical activity policies/programs. The exploration revealed substantial evidence that designing community environments that make physical activity attractive and convenient is likely to produce additional important benefits. The extent of the evidence justifies systematic reviews and additional research to fill gaps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Physical inactivity increases the risk of many chronic diseases including coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity and some cancers. It is currently recommended that adults should undertake at least 150 minutes of moderate physical activity in bouts of 10 minutes or more throughout the week. One way for adults in employment to incorporate exercise into their daily routine is to walk during the commute to and from work. Schemes to promote active travel require the support of employers and managers but there is a lack of research focusing on their views and experiences of promoting walk to work schemes. Methods: This study presents the findings from in-depth, digitally recorded interviews with 29 employers from a range of small, medium and large workplaces who participated in a feasibility study to develop and test an employer-led scheme to promote walking to work. All recordings were fully transcribed. The Framework approach for data management was used to aid qualitative analysis. Interview transcripts were read and reread, and textual data were placed in charts focusing on facilitators, barriers, and possibilities for employers to promote walking to work. Results: A range of perspectives were identified, from active support through uncertainty and cynicism to resistance. The majority of employers who took part in the study were unclear about how to give practical support for employees who walk to work, but appeared more confident about ideas to promote cycling. Some employers were concerned about how their attempts to promote walking might be perceived by employees. Furthermore, the main business of their organisation took priority over other activities. Conclusions: It is clear that employers need more evidence of the effectiveness of walk to work schemes, and the benefits to employers of committing resources to them. Furthermore, employers need support in creating an authentic, health promoting ethos within the workplace to enhance positive relationships and reduce tensions that may arise when promoting active travel initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Little is known about the types of ‘sit less, move more’ strategies that appeal to office employees, or what factors influence their use. This study assessed the uptake of strategies in Spanish university office employees engaged in an intervention, and those factors that enabled or limited strategy uptake. Methods The study used a mixed method design. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with academics and administrators (n = 12; 44 ± 12 mean SD age; 6 women) at three points across the five-month intervention, and data used to identify factors that influenced the uptake of strategies. Employees who finished the intervention then completed a survey rating (n = 88; 42 ± 8 mean SD age; 51 women) the extent to which strategies were used [never (1) to usually (4)]; additional survey items (generated from interviewee data) rated the impact of factors that enabled or limited strategy uptake [no influence (1) to very strong influence (4)]. Survey score distributions and averages were calculated and findings triangulated with interview data. Results Relative to baseline, 67% of the sample increased step counts post intervention (n = 59); 60% decreased occupational sitting (n = 53). ‘Active work tasks’ and ‘increases in walking intensity’ were the strategies most frequently used by employees (89% and 94% sometimes or usually utilised these strategies); ‘walk-talk meetings’ and ‘lunchtime walking groups’ were the least used (80% and 96% hardly ever or never utilised these strategies). ‘Sitting time and step count logging’ was the most important enabler of behaviour change (mean survey score of 3.1 ± 0.8); interviewees highlighted the motivational value of being able to view logged data through visual graphics in a dedicated website, and gain feedback on progress against set goals. ‘Screen based work’ (mean survey score of 3.2 ± 0.8) was the most significant barrier limiting the uptake of strategies. Inherent time pressures and cultural norms that dictated sedentary work practices limited the adoption of ‘walk-talk meetings’ and ‘lunch time walking groups’. Conclusions The findings provide practical insights into which strategies and influences practitioners need to target to maximise the impact of ‘sit less, move more’ occupational intervention strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Prolonged sitting time is detrimental for health. Individuals with desk-based occupations tend to sit a great deal and sit-stand workstations have been identified as a potential strategy to reduce sitting time. Hence, the objective of the current study was to examine the effects of using sit-stand workstations on office workers’ sitting time at work and over the whole day. Methods We conducted a randomized controlled trial pilot with crossover design and waiting list control in Sydney, Australia from September 2011 to July 2012 (n = 42; 86% female; mean age 38 ± 11 years). Participants used a sit-stand workstation for four weeks in the intervention condition. In the time-matched control condition, participants received nothing and crossed over to the intervention condition after four weeks. The primary outcomes, sitting, standing and walking time at work, were assessed before and after using the workstations with ActivPALs and self-report questionnaires. Secondary outcomes, domain-specific sitting over the whole day, were assessed by self-report. Linear mixed models estimated changes in outcomes adjusting for measurement time, study grouping and covariates. Results Intervention participants significantly reduced objectively assessed time spent sitting at work by 73 min/workday (95% CI: −106,-39) and increased standing time at work by 65 min/workday (95% CI: 47, 83); these changes were significant relative to controls (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively). Total sitting time significantly declined in intervention participants (−80 min/workday; 95% CI: −155, −4). Conclusions This study shows that introducing sit-stand workstations in the office can reduce desk-based workers’ sitting time at work in the short term. Larger scale studies on more representative samples are needed to determine the public health impact of sit-stand workstations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Sitting, particularly in prolonged, unbroken bouts, is widespread within the office workplace, yet few interventions have addressed this newly-identified health risk behaviour. This paper describes the iterative development process and resulting intervention procedures for the Stand Up Australia research program focusing on a multi-component workplace intervention to reduce sitting time. Methods The development of Stand Up Australia followed three phases. 1) Conceptualisation: Stand Up Australia was based on social cognitive theory and social ecological model components. These were operationalized via a taxonomy of intervention strategies and designed to target multiple levels of influence including: organisational structures (e.g. via management consultation), the physical work environment (via provision of height-adjustable workstations), and individual employees (e.g. via face-to-face coaching). 2) Formative research: Intervention components were separately tested for their feasibility and acceptability. 3) Pilot studies: Stand Up Comcare tested the integrated intervention elements in a controlled pilot study examining efficacy, feasibility and acceptability. Stand Up UQ examined the additional value of the organisational- and individual-level components over height-adjustable workstations only in a three-arm controlled trial. In both pilot studies, office workers' sitting time was measured objectively using activPAL3 devices and the intervention was refined based on qualitative feedback from managers and employees. Results Results and feedback from participants and managers involved in the intervention development phases suggest high efficacy, acceptance, and feasibility of all intervention components. The final version of the Stand Up Australia intervention includes strategies at the organisational (senior management consultation, representatives consultation workshop, team champions, staff information and brainstorming session with information booklet, and supportive emails from managers to staff), environmental (height-adjustable workstations), and individual level (face-to-face coaching session and telephone support). Stand Up Australia is currently being evaluated in the context of a cluster-randomised controlled trial at the Department of Human Services (DHS) in Melbourne, Australia. Conclusions Stand Up Australia is an evidence-guided and systematically developed workplace intervention targeting reductions in office workers' sitting time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Spatial configurations of office environments assessed by Space Syntax methodologies are related to employee movement patterns. These methods require analysis of floors plans which are not readily available in large population-based studies or otherwise unavailable. Therefore a self-report instrument to assess spatial configurations of office environments using four scales was developed. Methods: The scales are: local connectivity (16 items), overall connectivity (11 items), visibility of co-workers (10 items), and proximity of co-workers (5 items). A panel cohort (N = 1154) completed an online survey, only data from individuals employed in office-based occupations (n = 307) were used to assess scale measurement properties. To assess test-retest reliability a separate sample of 37 office-based workers completed the survey on two occasions 7.7 (±3.2) days apart. Redundant scale items were eliminated using factor analysis; Chronbach's α was used to evaluate internal consistency and test re-test reliability (retest-ICC). ANOVA was employed to examine differences between office types (Private, Shared, Open) as a measure of construct validity. Generalized Linear Models were used to examine relationships between spatial configuration scales and the duration of and frequency of breaks in occupational sitting. Results: The number of items on all scales were reduced, Chronbach's α and ICCs indicated good scale internal consistency and test re-test reliability: local connectivity (5 items; α = 0.70; retest-ICC = 0.84), overall connectivity (6 items; α = 0.86; retest-ICC = 0.87), visibility of co-workers (4 items; α = 0.78; retest-ICC = 0.86), and proximity of co-workers (3 items; α = 0.85; retest-ICC = 0.70). Significant (p ≤ 0.001) differences, in theoretically expected directions, were observed for all scales between office types, except overall connectivity. Significant associations were observed between all scales and occupational sitting behaviour (p ≤ 0.05). Conclusion: All scales have good measurement properties indicating the instrument may be a useful alternative to Space Syntax to examine environmental correlates of occupational sitting in population surveys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis aimed to investigate socioeconomic inequalities in effectiveness on healthy behavior of, and compliance to, workplace health promotion programs. Methods: Dutch (randomized) controlled trials were identified and original IPD were retrieved and harmonized. A two-stage meta-analysis was conducted where linear mixed models were performed per study (stage 1), after which individual study effects were pooled (stage 2). All models were adjusted for baseline values of the outcomes, age and gender. Intervention effects were assessed on physical activity, diet, alcohol use, and smoking. Also, we assessed whether effects differed between participants with low and high program compliance and. All analyses were stratified by socioeconomic position. Results: Data from 15 studies (n = 8709) were harmonized. Except for fruit intake (beta: 0·12 [95% CI 0·08 0·15]), no effects were found on health behaviors, nor did these effects differ across socioeconomic groups. Only participants with high compliance showed significant improvements in vigorous and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, and in more fruit and less snack intake. There were no differences in compliance across socioeconomic groups. Conclusions: Workplace health promotion programs were in general not effective. Neither effectiveness nor compliance differed across socioeconomic groups (operationalized by educational level). Even though stronger effects on health behavior were found for participations with high compliance, effects remained small. The results of the current study emphasize the need for new directions in health promotion programs to improve healthy behavior among workers, in particular for those in lower socioeconomic position. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is now a body of evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce workplace sitting time. However, there has been limited reporting of how such interventions may impact behaviour both during and outside of work. Sitting, standing and stepping changes following a workplace intervention were examined across five timeframes (work time on work days; non-work time on work days; work days; non-work days; overall (i.e. work and non-work time on all days)), and the relationships between changes during and outside of work was assessed. Methods: The cluster-randomised controlled trial, 'Stand Up Victoria', delivered a multi-component workplace-delivered intervention that successfully reduced workplace and overall sitting time (relative to controls). Separately, over the five timeframes, changes in device (activPAL3)-assessed outcomes — sitting; prolonged sitting (≥30 min bouts); standing; and, stepping — were compared between intervention (n = 114) and controls (n = 84), along with the time-course of sitting changes during work hours, using mixed models. The potential relationships of changes during work with changes outside of work were examined using compositional data analysis. Results: On workdays, intervention participants significantly (p < 0.05) improved their activity profile relative to controls, with reduced sitting (− 117 min/8-h workday, 95% CI: − 141, − 93) and prolonged sitting (− 77 min/8 h workday, 95% CI: − 101, − 52); increased standing (114 min/8 h workday, 95% CI: 92, 136) and maintenance of stepping (3 min/8 h workday, 95% CI: − 7, 11, p = 0.576). Effects were nearly identical for time at work; similar but slightly weaker for overall; and, small and non-significant outside of work on workdays and non-work days. Improvements occurred at all times, but not equally, during work hours (p < 0.001). Correlations between changes during and outside of work on workdays were very weak in both the intervention group (r = − 0.07) and controls (r = − 0.09). Conclusions: Sitting time was reduced almost exclusively during work hours (via replacement with standing), with reductions evident during all working hours, to varying degrees. There was no evidence of compensation, with minimal change in activity outside of work, in response to changes in activity at work. Future interventions may benefit from exploring how best to elicit change throughout the whole day, and across work and non-work domains. Trial registration: This trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials register (ACTRN12611000742976) on 15 July 2011 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Large amounts of sitting at work have been identified as an emerging occupational health risk, and findings from intervention trials have been reported. However, few such reports have examined participant-selected strategies and their relationships with behaviour change. Methods: The Stand Up Victoria cluster-randomised controlled trial was a workplace-delivered intervention comprising organisational, environmental and individual level behaviour change strategies aimed at reducing sitting time in desk-based workers. Sit-stand workstations were provided, and participants (n = 134; intervention group only) were guided by health coaches to identify strategies for the 'Stand Up', 'Sit Less', and 'Move More' intervention targets, including how long they would stand using the workstation. Three-month workplace sitting and activity changes (activPAL3-assessed total sitting, prolonged sitting (i.e., sitting ≥30 min continuously) and purposeful walking) were evaluated in relation to the number (regression analysis) and types of strategies (decision-tree analysis). Results: Over 80 different strategies were nominated by participants. Each additional strategy nominated for the 'Stand Up' intervention target (i.e. number of strategies) was associated with a reduction in prolonged sitting of 27.6 min/8-h workday (95% CI: -53.1, − 2.1, p = 0.034). Types of strategies were categorised into 13 distinct categories. Strategies that were task-based and phone-based were common across all three targets. The decision tree models did not select any specific strategy category as predicting changes in prolonged sitting ('Stand Up'), however four strategy categories were identified as important for total sitting time ('Sit Less') and three strategy categories for purposeful walking ('Moving More'). The uppermost nodes (foremost predictors) were nominating > 3 h/day of workstation standing (reducing total workplace sitting) and choosing a 'Move More' task-based strategy (purposeful walking). Conclusions: Workers chose a wide range of strategies, with both strategy choice and strategy quantity appearing relevant to behavioural improvement. Findings support a tailored and pragmatic approach to encourage a change in sitting and activity in the workplace. Evaluating participant-selected strategies in the context of a successful intervention serves to highlight options that may prove feasible and effective in other desk-based workplace environments. Trial registration: This trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials register (ACTRN12611000742976) on 15 July 2011, [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Reducing workplace sedentary behaviour (sitting) is a topic of contemporary public health and occupational health interest. Understanding workers' perspectives on the feasibility and acceptability of strategies, and barriers and facilitators to reducing workplace sitting time, can help inform the design and implementation of targeted interventions. The aim of this qualitative synthesis was to identify and synthesise the evidence on factors perceived to influence the acceptability and feasibility of reducing sitting at work, without, and with, an associated intervention component. Methods: A systematic search of the peer-reviewed literature was conducted across multiple databases in October 2017 to identify studies with a qualitative component relating to reducing workplace sitting time. Relevant data were extracted and imported into NVivo, and analysed by three of the authors by coding the results sections of papers line-by-line, with codes organised into sub-themes and then into overarching themes. Studies with and without an associated intervention were analysed separately. Results: Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria, 22 of which had collected qualitative data during and/or following a workplace intervention. Sample sizes ranged from five through to 71 participants. Studies predominately involved desk-based workers (28/32) and were most frequently conducted in Australia, USA or the United Kingdom (26/32). Similar themes were identified across non-intervention and intervention studies, particularly relating to barriers and facilitators to reducing workplace sitting. Predominately, work and social environment attributes were identified as barriers/facilitators, with desk-based work and work pressures influencing the perceived feasibility of reducing sitting, particularly for low-cost interventions. Support from co-workers and managers was considered a key facilitator to reducing sitting, while social norms that discouraged movement were a prominent barrier. Across all studies, some consistent perceptions of benefits to reducing sitting were identified, including improved physical health, enhanced emotional well-being and associated work-related benefits. Conclusion: Common barriers and facilitators to reducing workplace sitting time were identified across the literature, most prominently involving the social environment and job-related demands. These findings can inform the design and implementation of workplace sitting reduction strategies. To increase the generalisability of findings, further research is needed in a more diverse range of countries and industries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]