Search

Background Office workers spend 70–85% of their time at work sitting. High levels of sitting have been linked to poor physiological and psychological health. Evidence shows the need for fully powered randomised controlled trials, with long-term follow-up, to test the effectiveness of interventions to reduce sitting time. Objective Our objective was to test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the SMART Work & Life intervention, delivered with and without a height-adjustable workstation, compared with usual practice at 12-month follow-up. Design A three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting Councils in England. Participants Office workers. Intervention SMART Work & Life is a multicomponent intervention that includes behaviour change strategies, delivered by workplace champions. Clusters were randomised to (1) the SMART Work & Life intervention, (2) the SMART Work & Life intervention with a height-adjustable workstation (i.e. SMART Work & Life plus desk) or (3) a control group (i.e. usual practice). Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 12 months. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was device-assessed daily sitting time compared with usual practice at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included sitting, standing, stepping time, physical activity, adiposity, blood pressure, biochemical measures, musculoskeletal issues, psychosocial variables, work-related health, diet and sleep. Cost-effectiveness and process evaluation data were collected. Results A total of 78 clusters (756 participants) were randomised [control, 26 clusters (n = 267); SMART Work & Life only, 27 clusters (n = 249); SMART Work & Life plus desk, 25 clusters (n = 240)]. At 12 months, significant differences between groups were found in daily sitting time, with participants in the SMART Work & Life-only and SMART Work & Life plus desk arms sitting 22.2 minutes per day (97.5% confidence interval –38.8 to –5.7 minutes/day; p = 0.003) and 63.7 minutes per day (97.5% confidence interval –80.0 to –47.4 minutes/day; p < 0.001), respectively, less than the control group. Participants in the SMART Work & Life plus desk arm sat 41.7 minutes per day (95% confidence interval –56.3 to –27.0 minutes/day; p < 0.001) less than participants in the SMART Work & Life-only arm. Sitting time was largely replaced by standing time, and changes in daily behaviour were driven by changes during work hours on workdays. Behaviour changes observed at 12 months were similar to 3 months. At 12 months, small improvements were seen for stress, well-being and vigour in both intervention groups, and for pain in the lower extremity and social norms in the SMART Work & Life plus desk group. Results from the process evaluation supported these findings, with participants reporting feeling more energised, alert, focused and productive. The process evaluation also showed that participants viewed the intervention positively; however, the extent of engagement varied across clusters. The average cost of SMART Work & Life only and SMART Work & Life plus desk was £80.59 and £228.31 per participant, respectively. Within trial, SMART Work & Life only had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,091 per quality-adjusted life-year, with SMART Work & Life plus desk being dominated. Over a lifetime, SMART Work & Life only and SMART Work & Life plus desk had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £4985 and £13,378 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. Limitations The study was carried out in one sector, limiting generalisability. Conclusions The SMART Work & Life intervention, provided with and without a height-adjustable workstation, was successful in changing sitting time. Future work There is a need for longer-term follow-up, as well as follow-up within different organisations. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11618007. Plain language summary Office workers spend a large proportion of their day sitting. High levels of sitting have been linked to diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and some cancers. The SMART Work & Life intervention is designed to reduce office workers’ sitting time inside and outside work. The SMART Work & Life intervention involves organisational, environmental, group and individual strategies to encourage a reduction in sitting time and was designed to be delivered with and without a height-adjustable workstation (which allows the user to switch between sitting and standing while working). To test whether or not the SMART Work & Life intervention worked, we recruited 756 office workers from councils in Leicester/Leicestershire, Greater Manchester and Liverpool, UK. Participants were from 78 office groups. One-third of the participants received the intervention, one-third received the intervention with a height-adjustable workstation and one-third were a control group (and carried on as usual). Workplace champions in each office group were given training and resources to deliver the intervention. Data were collected at the start of the study, with follow-up measurements at 3 and 12 months. We measured sitting time using a small device worn on the thigh and collected data on weight, body fat, blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol levels. We asked participants about their health and work and spoke to participants to find out what they thought of the intervention. Our results showed that participants who received the intervention without workstation sat for 22 minutes less per day, and participants who received the intervention with workstation sat for 64 minutes less per day, than participants in the control group. Levels of stress, well-being, vigour (i.e. personal and emotional energy and cognitive liveliness) and pain in the lower extremity appeared to improve in the intervention groups. Participants viewed the intervention positively and reported several benefits, such as feeling more energised, alert, focused and productive; however, the extent to which participants engaged with the intervention varied across groups. Scientific summary Background High levels of sedentary behaviour (e.g. sitting, reclining or lying, and expending ≤ 1.5 metabolic equivalents) have been linked to poor health outcomes, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, some cancers and premature mortality. In addition to physiological health outcomes, high levels of sitting are detrimentally associated with cognitive function, mental health and a lower quality of life. Working-age adults spend around 60–70% of their workday sitting, with workdays being more sedentary than non-workdays; however, this can vary by occupation. Office workers spend 70–85% of their time at work sitting and accumulate a large proportion (40–50%) of this time in prolonged sitting bouts. Office workers also typically spend a large proportion of their leisure time sitting, compared with other occupations. In the workplace, lower levels of sitting have been linked to higher work vigour, higher job performance and lower presenteeism. Workplaces are, therefore, an ideal setting for implementing interventions to reduce daily sitting. Current evidence shows a need for fully powered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with long-term follow-up to test the effectiveness of interventions to reduce sitting. Previous work from our group, evaluating multicomponent interventions to address high levels of sitting in office workers, found that significant reductions in sitting time across the day were mainly driven by changes to workplace sitting and to not daily sitting, indicating that a whole-day approach to encourage reductions in daily sitting was needed to maximise the potential health benefits. Objectives The main aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the SMART Work & Life (SWAL) intervention (provided with and without a height-adjustable workstation) in a sample of desk-based office workers. If both interventions were shown to be effective in comparison with the control group, then a secondary aim would be to determine if one intervention was more clinically effective and cost-effective than the other. Primary objective To investigate the impact of the SWAL intervention, delivered with and without a height-adjustable workstation, on device-assessed daily sitting time compared with usual practice at 12 months’ follow-up. Secondary objectives To investigate the impact of the SWAL intervention, delivered with and without a height-adjustable workstation, over the short term (assessed at 3 months) and longer term (assessed at 12 months) on: daily sitting time on any valid day (3 months) and on workdays and non-workdays sitting time during work hours daily time spent standing and in light and moderate or vigorous physical activity (MVPA) across any valid day, during work hours and on workdays and non-workdays daily time spent stepping and number of steps across any valid day, during work hours and on workdays and non-workdays markers of adiposity [i.e. body mass index (BMI), per cent body fat, waist circumference] blood pressure blood biomarkers [i.e. fasting glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)] musculoskeletal health psychosocial health (i.e. fatigue, stress, anxiety and depression, well-being and quality of life) work-related health and performance (i.e. work engagement, job performance and satisfaction, occupational fatigue, presenteeism, sickness absence) sleep duration and quality. To undertake a full economic analysis of the SWAL intervention. To conduct a mixed-methods process evaluation throughout the intervention implementation period (using qualitative and quantitative measures) with participants and workplace champions. Methods Design A three-arm cluster RCT with a cost-effectiveness and process evaluation analysis. Follow-up measures were taken at 3 and 12 months. Setting Local councils in Leicester, Leicestershire, Greater Manchester and Liverpool, UK. Participants Participants were recruited from across participating councils (i.e. Leicester City Council, Leicestershire County Council, Salford City Council, Bolton Council, Trafford Council and Liverpool City Council). Participants were office-based employees (aged ≥ 18 years) who spent the majority (≥ 50%) of their day sitting, were at least 60% full-time equivalent and were able to walk without assistance. Employees who were pregnant, who already used a height-adjustable workstation or were unable to communicate in English were not eligible. Participants were grouped into clusters either by a shared office space (although could be made up of different teams/departments) or if they were members of the same team but split into different office spaces. To be eligible, each cluster was required to have at least one participant willing to undertake the role of workplace champion and at least four participants in the cluster. Informed consent was obtained from participants before the baseline measurement session and verbal consent was confirmed at each follow-up. Sample size To detect a 60-minute difference in average daily sitting time between the intervention groups and the control group [assuming a sitting time standard deviation (SD) of 90 minutes, 90% power, a two-tailed significance level of 5%, an average cluster size of 10 (range 4–38), an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.05, the number of clusters being inflated by a factor of 1.23, allowing for one cluster drop out per arm and a 40% loss to follow-up/non-compliance with the activPAL (PAL Technologies Ltd, Glasgow, UK)], the required sample size was 690 participants from 72 clusters. Testing two intervention arms independently with the control arm was also taken account of as part of the sample size calculation. Interventions The SWAL intervention is a multicomponent intervention grounded in several behaviour change theories, which aims to reduce daily sitting in office workers. The SWAL intervention includes organisational-level behaviour change strategies (e.g. management buy-in), environmental-level behaviour change strategies (e.g. relocating waster bins, printers) and group-/individual-level behaviour change strategies (e.g. education, action-planning, goal-setting, addressing barriers, group coaching, challenges, self-monitoring) that are delivered by workplace champions. After all baseline measures were carried out, clusters were randomised to one of the following three conditions: (1) SWAL only, (2) the SWAL intervention with the addition of a height-adjustable workstation (i.e. SWAL plus desk) or (3) the control group. Randomisation was stratified by area (i.e. Leicester, Salford or Liverpool) and cluster size [i.e. small (

Background The haemodialysis (HD) population is sedentary, with substantial cardiovascular disease risk. In the general population, small increases in daily step count associate with significant reductions in cardiovascular mortality. This study explores the relationship between daily step count and surrogate markers of cardiovascular disease, including left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and native T1 (a marker of diffuse myocardial fibrosis), within the HD population. Methods This was a post hoc analysis of the association between daily step count and metabolic equivalent of task (MET) and prognostically important cardiac magnetic resonance imaging parameters from the CYCLE-HD study (ISRCTN11299707). Unadjusted linear regression and multiple linear regression adjusted for age, body mass index, dialysis vintage, haemoglobin, hypertension and ultrafiltration volume were performed. Significant relationships were explored with natural cubic spline models with four degrees of freedom (five knots). Results A total of 107 participants were included [age 56.3 ± 14.1 years, 79 (73.8%) males]. The median daily step count was 2558 (interquartile range 1054–4352). There were significant associations between steps and LVEF (β = 0.292; P  = .009) and steps and native T1 (β = −0.245; P  = .035). Further modelling demonstrated most of the increase in LVEF occurred at up to 2000 steps/day and there was an inverse dose–response relationship between steps and native T1, with the most pronounced reduction in native T1 between ≈2500 and 6000 steps/day. Conclusions The results suggest an association between daily step count and parameters of cardiovascular health in the HD population. These findings support the recommendations for encouraging physical activity but are not the justification. Further research should evaluate whether a simple physical activity intervention improves cardiovascular outcomes in individuals receiving maintenance HD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Older people with frailty are at risk of harm from immobility or isolation, yet data about how COVID-19 lockdowns affected them are limited. Falls and fractures are easily measurable adverse outcomes correlated with frailty. We investigated whether English hospital admission rates for falls and fractures varied from the expected trajectory during the COVID-19 pandemic, and how these varied by frailty status. Methods NHS England Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care data were analysed for observed versus predicted outcome rates for 24 January 2020 to 31 December 2021. An auto-regressive integrated moving average time-series model was trained using falls and fracture incidence data from 2013 to 2018 and validated using data from 2019. Models included national and age-, sex- and region-stratified forecasts. Outcome measures were hospital admissions for falls, fractures, and falls and fractures combined. Frailty was defined using the Hospital Frailty Risk Score. Results 144,148,915 pre-pandemic hospital admissions were compared with 42,267,318 admissions after pandemic onset. For the whole population, falls and fracture rates were below predicted for the first period of national lockdown, followed by a rapid return to rates close to predicted. Thereafter, rates followed expected trends. For people living with frailty, however, falls and fractures increased above expected rates during periods of national lockdown and remained elevated throughout the study period. Effects of frailty were independent of age. Conclusions People living with frailty experienced increased fall and fracture rates above expected during and following periods of national lockdown. These remained persistently elevated throughout the study period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Healthcare workers (HCWs), particularly those from ethnic minority groups, have been shown to be at disproportionately higher risk of infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) compared to the general population. However, there is insufficient evidence on how demographic and occupational factors influence infection risk among ethnic minority HCWs. Methods and findings We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the baseline questionnaire of the United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) cohort study, administered between December 2020 and March 2021. We used logistic regression to examine associations of demographic, household, and occupational risk factors with SARS-CoV-2 infection (defined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), serology, or suspected COVID-19) in a diverse group of HCWs. The primary exposure of interest was self-reported ethnicity. Among 10,772 HCWs who worked during the first UK national lockdown in March 2020, the median age was 45 (interquartile range [IQR] 35 to 54), 75.1% were female and 29.6% were from ethnic minority groups. A total of 2,496 (23.2%) reported previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The fully adjusted model contained the following dependent variables: demographic factors (age, sex, ethnicity, migration status, deprivation, religiosity), household factors (living with key workers, shared spaces in accommodation, number of people in household), health factors (presence/absence of diabetes or immunosuppression, smoking history, shielding status, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status), the extent of social mixing outside of the household, and occupational factors (job role, the area in which a participant worked, use of public transport to work, exposure to confirmed suspected COVID-19 patients, personal protective equipment [PPE] access, aerosol generating procedure exposure, night shift pattern, and the UK region of workplace). After adjustment, demographic and household factors associated with increased odds of infection included younger age, living with other key workers, and higher religiosity. Important occupational risk factors associated with increased odds of infection included attending to a higher number of COVID-19 positive patients (aOR 2.59, 95% CI 2.11 to 3.18 for [greater than or equal to]21 patients per week versus none), working in a nursing or midwifery role (1.30, 1.11 to 1.53, compared to doctors), reporting a lack of access to PPE (1.29, 1.17 to 1.43), and working in an ambulance (2.00, 1.56 to 2.58) or hospital inpatient setting (1.55, 1.38 to 1.75). Those who worked in intensive care units were less likely to have been infected (0.76, 0.64 to 0.92) than those who did not. Black HCWs were more likely to have been infected than their White colleagues, an effect which attenuated after adjustment for other known risk factors. This study is limited by self-selection bias and the cross sectional nature of the study means we cannot infer the direction of causality. Conclusions We identified key sociodemographic and occupational risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among UK HCWs, and have determined factors that might contribute to a disproportionate odds of infection in HCWs from Black ethnic groups. These findings demonstrate the importance of social and occupational factors in driving ethnic disparities in COVID-19 outcomes, and should inform policies, including targeted vaccination strategies and risk assessments aimed at protecting HCWs in future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial registration The study was prospectively registered at ISRCTN (reference number: ISRCTN11811602)., Author(s): Christopher A. Martin 1,2, Daniel Pan 1,2, Carl Melbourne 3, Lucy Teece 4, Avinash Aujayeb 5, Rebecca F. Baggaley 1, Luke Bryant 1, Sue Carr 6,7, Bindu Gregary 8, [...]