Abstract
BackgroundThe web-based BeUpstanding Champion Toolkit was developed to support work teams in addressing the emergent work health and safety issue of excessive sitting. It provides a step-by-step guide and associated resources that equip a workplace representative—the champion—to adopt and deliver the 8-week intervention program (BeUpstanding) to their work team. The evidence-informed program is designed to raise awareness of the benefits of sitting less and moving more, build a supportive culture for change, and encourage staff to take action to achieve this change. Work teams collectively choose the strategies they want to implement and promote to stand up, sit less, and move more, with this bespoke and participative approach ensuring the strategies are aligned with the team’s needs and existing culture. BeUpstanding has been iteratively developed and optimized through a multiphase process to ensure that it is fit for purpose for wide-scale implementation.ObjectiveThe study aimed to describe the current version of BeUpstanding, and the methods and protocol for a national implementation trial.MethodsThe trial will be conducted in collaboration with five Australian workplace health and safety policy and practice partners. Desk-based work teams from a variety of industries will be recruited from across Australia via partner-led referral pathways. Recruitment will target sectors (small business, rural or regional, call center, blue collar, and government) that are of priority to the policy and practice partners. A minimum of 50 work teams will be recruited per priority sector with a minimum of 10,000 employees exposed to the program. A single-arm, repeated-measures design will assess the short-term (end of program) and long-term (9 months postprogram) impacts. Data will be collected on the web via surveys and toolkit analytics and by the research team via telephone calls with champions. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance Framework will guide the evaluation, with assessment of the adoption/reach of the program (the number and characteristics of work teams and participating staff), program implementation (completion by the champion of core program components), effectiveness (on workplace sitting, standing, and moving), and maintenance (sustainability of changes). There will be an economic evaluation of the costs and outcomes of scaling up to national implementation, including intervention affordability and sustainability.ResultsThe study received funding in June 2018 and the original protocol was approved by institutional review board on January 9, 2017, with national implementation trial consent and protocol amendment approved March 12, 2019. The trial started on June 12, 2019, with 48 teams recruited as of December 2019.ConclusionsThe implementation and multimethod evaluation of BeUpstanding will provide the practice-based evidence needed for informing the potential broader dissemination of the program.Trial RegistrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617000682347; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=372843&isReview=true.International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/15756
Highlights
1b-iii) Open vs. closed, web-based vs. face-toface assessments in the METHODS section of the ABSTRACT
Keep in mind the needs of systematic reviewers and indexers by including important synonyms. If this information is missing from the main body of text, consider adding it) subitem not at all important essential
Clarify the level of human involvement in the abstract, e.g., use phrases like “fully automated” vs. “therapist/nurse/care provider/physician-assisted”. If this information is missing from the main body of text, consider adding it) subitem not at all important essential https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfZBSUp1bwOc_OimqcS64RdfIAFvmrTSkZQL2-3O8O9hrL5Sw/viewform?hl=en_US&formkey=dG... 10/46
Summary
Describe the problem and the type of system/solution that is object of the study: intended as standalone intervention vs. incorporated in broader health care program? Intended for a particular patient population? Goals of the intervention, e.g., being more cost-effective to other interventions, replace or complement other solutions? (Note: Details about the intervention are provided in “Methods” under 5). Describe the problem and the type of system/solution that is object of the study: intended as standalone intervention vs incorporated in broader health care program? "The translation of what has been learned from the Stand Up Australia intervention trials to the BeUpstanding program has involved multiple, iterative phases [13]. These phases have been underpinned by the key principles guiding dissemination of broad-reach health behaviour programs [33], including partnerships with key stakeholders, ensuring fit of the progam with the organisational goals, integration of outcomes important to informing funders and advancing science, systematic tracking of the resources needed for implementation and intervention, and the maintenance of program fidelity while being flexible and responsive.". Yes "The aims of this paper are to describe the current version of the BeUpstanding program and the methods and protocol for evaluating the BeUpstanding program in the context of a national implementation trial."
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
