Sit-stand Desks Research Articles

The views of GPs about using sit-stand desks: an observational study.

Occupational sitting is associated with negative health outcomes. Sit-stand workstations have been shown to reduce sitting time in office workers, although there is no evidence on whether this change to practice would be acceptable to GPs. To investigate GPs views about the use of sit-stand desks within general practice and the potential impact they may have on the nature and quality of consultations with adult patients. Observational study involving GPs located across the UK. An online survey was emailed to members of the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) and shared on social media. Only GPs working in the UK were eligible. The survey included questions on socio-demographics, GPs views about the use of sit-stand desks within their work, their levels of physical activity, total time spent sitting at work each day, and time spent at work. 14 142 surveys were sent by the RCGP to their members with 810 GPs responding, with a further 33 responding via social media. 60.6% of GPs would like a sit-stand desks in their consultation room, while 19.2% already had one. Most GPs thought sit-stand desks could be used for telephone consultations (91.9%) and administration tasks (92.3%). There was less agreement about whether they could be used during face-to-face consultations (35.0% agreed), with the potential impact on the doctor-patient relationship raised as the primary concern. The implementation of sit-stand desks had support from GPs, but their possible impact on the doctor-patient relationship should be considered in future research.

Exploration of sedentary behaviour among GPs: a cross-sectional study.

BackgroundSedentary behaviour, which may have increased among GPs due to increasing use of telemedicine, is associated with many illnesses and increased all-cause mortality.AimTo explore levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs and General Practice Specialty Trainees (GPSTs).Design & settingSequential, cross-sectional design (initial online sedentary behaviour questionnaire and subsequent thigh-worn accelerometer substudy) of GPs and GPSTs in Northern Ireland.MethodSelf-reported questionnaire data were aggregated and compared with device-measured accelerometry data.ResultsData from 353 participants (17.7% of GPs and GPSTs in Northern Ireland) revealed doctors in general practice self-reported higher workday sedentary time (10.33 hours, SD 2.97) than those in secondary care (7.9 hours, SD 3.43 [mean difference {MD} 2.43 hours; P<0.001]). An active workstation (for example, sit-stand desk), was used by 5.6% of participants in general practice, while 86.0% of those without one would consider using one in future. Active workstation users self-reported lower workday sedentary time (7.88 hours, SD 3.2) than non-users (10.47 hours, SD 2.88 [MD –2.58 hours, P = 0.001]). Accelerometer substudy participants underestimated their workday sedentary time by 0.17 hours (95% confidence interval [CI] = –1.86 to 2.20; P = 0.865), and non-workday sedentary time by 2.67 hours (95% CI = 0.99 to 4.35; P = 0.003). Most GPs (80.7%) reported increased workday sitting time compared to prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, while 87.0% would prefer less workday sitting time.ConclusionGPs have high levels of workday sedentary time, which may be detrimental to their health. It is imperative to develop methods to address sedentary behaviour among GPs on workdays, both for their own health and the health of their patients.

Promoting physical activity and health in Hong Kong primary school children through a blended physical literacy intervention: protocol and baseline characteristics of the \u201cStand+Move\u201d randomized controlled trial

BackgroundChildren predominantly remain sedentary in a traditional classroom. This study aimed to demonstrate the design and baseline characteristics of a three-armed intervention program that targeted enhancements in children’s physical literacy (PL), physical activity (PA), sleep, and executive functions by constructing an active classroom environment in primary schools. The blended approach involved organized PA participation during recess combined with changes to the classroom environment in response to the emphasis on nurturing children’s PL in Hong Kong.MethodsThis blended “Stand + Move” intervention adopted a randomized controlled trial design to investigate its effectiveness in improving health-related aspects. Three groups were compared: (1) PA recess intervention, (2) blended (sit-stand desks and PA recess) experimental, and (3) control groups. In this 13-week intervention (from March to September 2019), 76 students (59.2% girls) were recruited and randomly assigned to the three groups. The primary outcomes were children’s PL and PA. The secondary outcomes were children’s sleep and executive functions.ResultsBaseline data were evaluated. The mean age was 9.6 years [standard deviation = 0.61, range 9.0–12.0]. There were no significant differences between trial arms at baseline concerning any of the outcomes (all P = 0.06–0.89). Overall, 22.4% met the recommended PA guidelines, 36.8% met the sleep guidelines, and 10.5% met both guidelines. Three aspects of executive functions were evaluated: inhibition, executive control, and planning. Over half of the participants reported satisfaction with their perceived sleep quality.ConclusionsThe designed intervention is regarded as an innovative strategy that incorporates sit-stand desks and PA breaks to reconstruct children’s traditional classroom environment. The baseline results suggest that intervention was satisfactory in reducing students’ sitting time and increasing their PA engagement. We demonstrated the benefits of this intervention on children’s PL, various sleep patterns, and executive functions. As expected, the designed intervention changes made to the classroom improved children’s health behaviors, as well as the support from stakeholders at schools and the children’s families. Our results also provided the desired evidence for policy reforms in teaching and learning strategies.Trial registrationChiCTR ChiCTR2000035038. Registered on July 29, 2020—retrospectively registered

Office-workers maintain decreased workplace sitting time long-term following participation in a sit-stand desk intervention study

Previous studies report decreased workplace sitting time when standing desk interventions are provided to office workers. It is unclear whether decreased sedentary behaviours are maintained long-term. This was a follow-up to a previous intervention study to investigate whether observed sitting time decreases of 30–50% were sustained 12–24 months later. A secondary aim was to compare overall physical activity between office workers with and without standing desks. Although sitting time increased over the follow-up period, this did not reach significance and reductions in workplace sitting remained significantly lower (23.5% decrease) from baseline values. There were no differences in the physical activity measures between workers with and without access to standing desks, although this was a small sample size and further research is needed. Individuals who are motivated to try standing desks at work can benefit through decreased sitting time long-term, however this may not extend to increased overall physical activity levels. Practitioner summary: Providing standing desk options to office-based employees can have long-lasting impacts with reducing sitting time at work. Office workers who choose to stand at work do not appear to compensate with overall activity level reduction outside of work. Abbreviations: LBP: low back pain; OSPAQ: occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire; VAS: visual analog scale; ANOVA: analysis of variance; BMI: body mass index; ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient

Effects of a Workplace Sit-Stand Desk Intervention on Health and Productivity.

In Japan, standing while working has not yet become commonplace, and there is little evidence to support the benefits of standing during the workday. Therefore, this study assessed the relationship between the introduction of a sit–stand desk and its ability to reduce the negative effects of sitting too long and increase employees’ general health and productivity. Seventy-four Japanese desk workers participated in this three-month intervention study. Using a randomized controlled trial, the participants were divided into intervention (n = 36) and control (n = 38) groups. The participant characteristics were ascertained using a questionnaire. The intervention effectiveness was assessed by measuring health-, physical activity-, and work-related outcomes. The results indicate that the intervention group significantly decreased their sitting time at work (p = 0.002) and had reduced neck and shoulder pain (p = 0.001). There was a significant increase in subjective health (p = 0.002), vitality in work-related engagement (p < 0.001), and self-rated work performance over a four-week period (p = 0.017). These findings indicate a significant difference between the two groups, demonstrating the effectiveness of a sit–stand desk in reducing sedentary behavior and improving workers’ health and productivity. Future research can accumulate further evidence of best practice use of sit–stand desks.

Schedules of standing and sitting directed by musculoskeletal discomfort in workers transitioning to sit-stand workstations: a cross-sectional study

Sit-stand workstations are growing in popularity, however limited guidelines exist regarding optimal schedules of sitting and standing. This was the first known study to observe sit-stand workstation schedules when postural change is based on maintaining musculoskeletal discomfort within 'acceptable' levels. Fourteen healthy adults new to sit-stand workstations completed computer-based work at a sit-stand desk for half a workday. Participants changed between standing and sitting postures each time discomfort reached the maximum acceptable threshold. On average, the amount of standing and sitting was greatest in the first standing (median 40 minutes, interquartile range 40 minutes) and sitting (median 30 minutes, interquartile range 115 minutes) bouts. Average durations spent standing and sitting were lower in all consecutive bouts. Stand-sit ratios indicated an equal amount of standing to sitting or somewhat less standing. The schedules had substantial inter-participant variability. Future studies should consider that optimal schedules may vary with regard to time and be individual-specific.

Effect of Reducing Sedentary Behavior on Blood Pressure (RESET BP): Rationale, design, and methods

Sedentary behavior (SB) has recently been recognized as a strong risk factor for cardiovascular disease, with new guidelines encouraging adults to ‘sit less, move more.’ Yet, there are few randomized trials demonstrating that reducing SB improves cardiovascular health. The Effect of Reducing Sedentary Behavior on Blood Pressure (RESET BP) randomized clinical trial addresses this gap by testing the effect of a 3-month SB reduction intervention on resting systolic BP. Secondary outcomes include other BP measures, pulse wave velocity, plasma renin activity and aldosterone, and objectively-measured SB (via thigh-mounted activPAL) and physical activity (via waist-worn GT3X accelerometer). RESET BP has a targeted recruitment of 300 adults with desk jobs, along with elevated, non-medicated BP (systolic BP 120–159 mmHg or diastolic BP 80–99 mmHg) and physical inactivity (self-reported aerobic physical activity below recommended levels). The multi-component intervention promotes 2–4 fewer hours of SB per day by replacing sitting with standing and light-intensity movement breaks. Participants assigned to the intervention condition receive a sit-stand desk attachment, a wrist-worn activity prompter, behavioral counseling every two weeks (alternating in-person and phone), and twice-weekly automated text messages. Herein, we review the study rationale, describe and evaluate recruitment strategies based on enrollment to date, and detail the intervention and assessment protocols. We also document our mid-trial adaptations to participant recruitment, intervention deployment, and outcome assessments due to the intervening COVID-19 pandemic. Our research methods, experiences to date, and COVID-specific accommodations could inform other research studying BP and hypertension or targeting working populations, including those seeking remote methods.

Stand Out in Class: Investigating the Potential Impact of a Sit-Stand Desk Intervention on Children's Sitting and Physical Activity during Class Time and after School.

Sedentary behaviour (sitting) is a risk factor for adverse health outcomes. The classroom environment has traditionally been associated with prolonged periods of sitting in children. The aim of this study was to examine the potential impact of an environmental intervention, the addition of sit–stand desks in the classroom, on school children’s sitting and physical activity during class time and after school. The ‘Stand Out in Class’ pilot trial was a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in eight primary schools with children from a mixed socioeconomic background. The 4.5 month environmental intervention modified the physical (six sit–stand desks replaced standard desks) and social (e.g., teachers’ support) environment. All children wore activPAL and ActiGraph accelerometers for 7 days at baseline and follow-up. In total 176 children (mean age = 9.3 years) took part in the trial. At baseline, control and intervention groups spent more than 65% of class time sitting, this changed to 71.7% and 59.1% at follow-up, respectively (group effect p < 0.001). The proportion of class time spent standing and stepping, along with the proportion of time in light activity increased in the intervention group and decreased in the control group. There was no evidence of any compensatory effects from the intervention after school. Incorporating sit–stand desks to change the classroom environment at primary school appears to be an acceptable strategy for reducing children’s sedentary behaviour and increasing light activity especially during class time. Trial registration: ISRCTN12915848 (registered: 09/11/16).

The impact of standing desks on cardiometabolic and vascular health.

Sedentary behavior is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality, independent of physical activity. The biological mechanisms underlying these associations are largely unknown. We hypothesized that obese subjects with sedentary desk jobs, when assigned a sit-stand desk, will reduce daily sedentary time, and show improvement in arterial flow-mediated dilation (FMD), an early indicator of CVD. Overweight and obese subjects without known CVD were recruited at our institution and given an adjustable sit-stand desk at work. Activities were quantified with an accelerometer for 7 days at baseline and during the intervention. FMD of the brachial and superficial femoral arteries, fasting lipids, insulin and glucose labs, and anthropometrics were measured at baseline, and 12 and 24 weeks. Repeated one-way ANOVA tests were used to compare measurements over time. Fifteen participants were enrolled (93% female, mean age 40 ± 5 years, mean body mass index [BMI] 33 ± 5). Mean daily sedentary time at work decreased by 90 minutes from baseline (385 ± 49 minutes) to 12 weeks (297 ± 80 minutes, p = 0.002) and 24 weeks (295 ± 127 minutes, p = 0.015). Femoral FMD increased from baseline (4.9 ± 1.7%) to 12 weeks (6.4 ± 2.3%, p = 0.043) and further to 24 weeks (8.1 ± 3.2%, p = 0.009). Significant improvement in fasting triglycerides and insulin resistance occurred. There was no change in brachial FMD, exercise activity, step counts, weight, or BMI. A significant reduction in sedentary time during working hours was identified with utilization of a sit-stand desk and sustained over 24 weeks. Improvements in FMD, triglycerides, and insulin resistance provide insight into mechanisms of adverse health risks associated with sedentary behavior.

The effects of prolonged sitting, standing, and an alternating sit-stand pattern on trunk mechanical stiffness, trunk muscle activation and low back discomfort

Sit-stand desks continue to be a popular intervention for office work. While previous studies have reported changes in subjective measures, there is limited understanding of how sit-stand work differs from prolonged sitting or standing work, from a biomechanical standpoint. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of prolonged sitting, prolonged standing, and a sit-stand paradigm on changes in trunk stiffness, low back discomfort, and trunk muscle activation. Twelve healthy participants performed 2 h of computer-based tasks in each protocol, on three different days. The sit-stand protocol was associated with a significant increase in trunk stiffness and a decrease in muscle activation of lumbar multifidus and longissimus thoracis pars thoracis, compared to both prolonged sitting and standing. Both sitting and standing were associated with increased low back discomfort. These findings may be worth exploring in more detail, for why alternating sit-stand patterns may help alleviate low back pain. Practitioner summary: We explored changes in objective and subjective measures related to low back discomfort following prolonged sitting, standing, and alternating sit-stand patterns. Alternating sit-stand pattern was associated with increased trunk stiffness and decreased back muscle activity. Hence, sit-stand desks may have benefits in terms of preventing/mitigating low back pain. Abbreviations: DOF: degree of freedom; EMG: electromyogram; ILL: iliocostalis lumborum pars lumborum; LTL: longissimus thoracis pars lumborum; LTT: longissimus thoracis pars thoracis; LBP: low back pain; LM: lumbar multifidus; MVEs: maximum isometric voluntary exertions; RANOVA: repeated-measure analysis of variance; RMS: root mean square

Concurrent and discriminant validity of ActiGraph waist and wrist cut-points to measure sedentary behaviour, activity level, and posture in office work

BackgroundSedentary Behaviour (SB) gets an increasing attention from ergonomics and public health due to its associated detrimental health effects. A large number of studies record SB with ActiGraph counts-per-minute cut-points, but we still lack valid information about what the cut-points tell us about office work. This study therefore analysed the concurrent and discriminant validity of commonly used cut-points to measure SB, activity level, and posture.MethodsThirty office workers completed four office tasks at three workplaces (conventional chair, activity-promoting chair, and standing desk) while wearing two ActiGraphs (waist and wrist). Indirect calorimetry and prescribed posture served as reference criteria. Generalized Estimation Equations analysed workplace and task effects on the activity level and counts-per-minute, and kappa statistics and ROC curves analysed the cut-point validity.ResultsThe activity-promoting chair (p < 0.001, ES ≥ 0.66) but not the standing desk (p = 1.0) increased the activity level, and both these workplaces increased the waist (p ≤ 0.003, ES ≥ 0.63) but not the wrist counts-per-minute (p = 0.74) compared to the conventional chair. The concurrent and discriminant validity was higher for activity level (kappa: 0.52–0.56 and 0.38–0.45, respectively) than for SB and posture (kappa ≤0.35 and ≤ 0.19, respectively). Furthermore, the discriminant validity for activity level was higher for task effects (kappa: 0.42–0.48) than for workplace effects (0.13–0.24).ConclusionsActiGraph counts-per-minute for waist and wrist placement were – independently of the chosen cut-point – a measure for activity level and not for SB or posture, and the cut-points performed better to detect task effects than workplace effects. Waist cut-points were most valid to measure the activity level in conventional seated office work, but they showed severe limitations for sit-stand desks. None of the placements was valid to detect the increased activity on the activity-promoting chair. Caution should therefore be paid when analysing the effect of workplace interventions on activity level with ActiGraph waist and wrist cut-points.

Effects of Time in Sitting and Standing on Pleasantness, Acceptability, Fatigue, and Pain When Using a Sit-Stand Desk: An Experiment on Overweight and Normal-Weight Subjects.

Sit-stand desks have been suggested as an initiative to increase posture variation among office workers. However, there is limited evidence of what would be preferable combinations of time sitting and standing. The aim of this study was to determine and compare perceived pleasantness, acceptability, pain, and fatigue for 5 time patterns of sitting and standing at a sit-stand desk. Thirty postgraduate students were equally divided into a normal-weight (mean body mass index 22.8kg/m2) and an overweight/obese (mean body mass index 28.1kg/m2) group. They performed 3 hours of computer work at a sit-stand desk on 5 different days, each day with a different time pattern (A: 60-min sit/0-min stand; B: 50/10; C: 40/20; D: 30/30; E: 20/40). Pleasantness, acceptability, pain, and fatigue ratings were obtained at the beginning and at the end of the 3-hour period. High ratings of pleasantness were observed for time patterns B, C, and D in both groups. All participants rated acceptability to be good for time patterns A to D. A minor increase in perceived fatigue and pain was observed in time pattern E. For new sit-stand desk users, regardless of body mass index, 10 to 30 minutes of standing per hour appears to be an amenable time pattern.

Measurement of Sit-Stand Desk Usage by Desk-Mounted Sensors

Quantifying user behaviors at sit-stand desks is critical to understanding the efficacy of these workstations to reduce exposures to prolonged sitting or standing. A custom after-market desk-mounted sensor predicting sit-stand desk use by measuring desk floor heights, desk user distances, and the temperature in front of the desk was tested. The authors performed sensor component testing, a survey of desk height ranges, and a logistic model to estimate gross posture and user presence with a 95.6% accuracy rate. This approach can aid researchers and ergonomists in understanding sit-stand desk use in the field, with the end goal of reducing sedentary work activities.

Compared with traditional sit desks, do sit-stand desks reduce time spent sitting at work?

Compared with traditional sit desks, do sit-stand desks reduce time spent sitting at work?

Increasing standing tolerance in office workers with standing-induced back pain

Sit-stand desks are popular however many people have standing-induced low back pain (LBP). People with LBP have fewer standing weight shifts compared with back-healthy people. Participants were classified as standing-tolerant or intolerant. Participants were provided sit-stand desks for 12 weeks. Participants were assigned to intervention (graded standing exposure and exercise) or control (no instruction) conditions. Participants reported weekly sitting time and average/worst LBP. Standing weight shifts and LBP were re-assessed post-intervention. All groups decreased sitting time (range: 30–50%) over 12 weeks. Sitting time and average LBP were correlated in all standing-intolerant individuals, worst LBP and sitting time were correlated for intervention group only. All standing-intolerant individuals increased standing weight shifts and decreased LBP after 12-weeks. Standing-intolerant individuals benefitted from 12-weeks of sit-stand desk use regardless of intervention. Motivated individuals with standing-induced LBP may increase standing tolerance with sit-stand desk use. Additional benefits may exist when structured guidance is provided. Practitioner summary: Many people are standing-intolerant due to low back pain (LBP). This lab and field-based study showed some benefits from structured approaches to gradually progress standing time when transitioning to standing work. Using a sit-stand desk for 12 weeks resulted in decreased LBP and sitting time in standing-intolerant people. Abbreviations: LBP: low back pain; OSPAQ: Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire; VAS: visual analog scale; GRF: ground reaction force; WeekVASMAX: worst low back pain reported on visual analog scale for prior week; WeekVASAVE: average low back pain reported on visual analog scale for prior week; ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient; LabVASMAX: worst low back pain reported on visual analog scale during lab-based standing; LabVASAVE: average low back pain reported on visual analog scale during lab-based standing; FvR,L: vertical ground reaction force for right and left force plate; BWSSMALL: small (10-29% body weight) body weight shift; BWSLARGE: large (> 30% body weight) body weight shift; ActivPALSED: ActivePAL data for sedentary time; ActivPALSTND: ActivePAL data for standing time; ANOVA: analysis of variance; Standing Intolerant-INT: standing intolerant participants assigned to intervention condition; Standing Intolerant-CON: standing intolerant participants assigned to control condition; Standing Tolerant-INT: standing tolerant participants assigned to intervention condition; Standing Tolerant-CON: standing tolerant participants assigned to control condition; SI: standing intolerant; ST: standing tolerant; INT: intervention; CON: control

Stand Out in Class: restructuring the classroom environment to reduce sitting time \u2013 findings from a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial

BackgroundExcessive sedentary behaviour (sitting) is a risk factor for poor health in children and adults. Incorporating sit-stand desks in the classroom environment has been highlighted as a potential strategy to reduce children’s sitting time. The primary aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a sit-stand desk intervention within primary school classrooms.MethodsWe conducted a two-armed pilot cluster RCT involving 8 primary schools in Bradford, United Kingdom. Schools were randomised on a 1:1 basis to the intervention or usual practice control arm. All children (aged 9–10 years) in participating classes were eligible to take part. Six sit-stand desks replaced three standard desks (sitting 6 children) in the intervention classrooms for 4.5-months. Teachers were encouraged to use a rotation system to ensure all pupils were exposed to the sit-stand desks for > 1 h/day on average. Trial feasibility outcomes (assessed using quantitative and qualitative measures) included school and participant recruitment and attrition, intervention and outcome measure completion rates, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of the intervention for reducing sitting time. A weighted linear regression model compared changes in weekday sitting time (assessed using the activPAL accelerometer) between trial arms.ResultsSchool and child recruitment rates were 33% (n = 8) and 75% (n = 176). At follow-up, retention rates were 100% for schools and 97% for children. Outcome measure completion rates ranged from 63 to 97%. A preliminary estimate of intervention effectiveness revealed a mean difference in change in sitting of − 30.6 min/day (95% CI: − 56.42 to − 4.84) in favour of the intervention group, after adjusting for baseline sitting and wear time. Qualitative measures revealed the intervention and evaluation procedures were acceptable to teachers and children, except for some problems with activPAL attachment.ConclusionThis study provides evidence of the acceptability and feasibility of a sit-stand desk intervention and evaluation methods. Preliminary evidence suggests the intervention showed potential in reducing children’s weekday sitting but some adaptations to the desk rotation system are needed to maximize exposure. Lessons learnt from this trial will inform the planning of a definitive trial.Trial registrationISRCTN12915848 (registered: 09/11/16).

Beneficial, adverse, and spiraling health-promotion effects: Evidence from a longitudinal randomized controlled trial of working at sit-stand desks.

In a 6-month longitudinal randomized field experiment, we examined how using height-adjustable sit-stand desks could have beneficial, adverse, and spiraling effects on people's musculoskeletal and psychovegetative complaints, and on positive (vitality and vigilance) and negative psychological symptoms, namely, stressor uncontrollability (i.e., perceived uncontrollability of workload), psychological tension, and mental tiredness. A total of 127 employees in various, mostly sedentary, occupations were randomly assigned to either the intervention or the control group. Variables were assessed monthly for 6 months on a self-reported basis. Bayesian structural equation modeling showed that the intervention produced large inhibiting between-subjects effects for musculoskeletal problems in the neck, back, and shoulders (β ranged between -.26 and -.21). Within-subject analyses revealed that the intervention produced large inhibiting effect sizes for intensity (g = 3.06) and prevalence of musculoskeletal (g = 1.19) and psychovegetative complaints (g between 0.76 and 1.57). For negative psychological symptoms (i.e., psychological tension and mental tiredness), participants in the intervention group showed a steeper decrease than participants in the control group (g between 2.34 and 3.74). For positive indicators (i.e., vitality and vigilance), the intervention produced large promoting effects for participants in the intervention group compared with participants in the control group (g between 0.70 and 1.65). There was no change in stressor uncontrollability between the two groups. Finally, findings suggest that sit-stand desks can be effective in improving occupational health by weakening a downward-spiraling effect. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

\u201cWhy would you want to stand?\u201d an account of the lived experience of employees taking part in a workplace sit-stand desk intervention

BackgroundSit-stand desk interventions have the potential to reduce workplace sedentary behaviour and improve employee health. However, the extent of sit-stand desk use varies between employees and in different organisational contexts. Framed by organisational cultural theory and product design theory, this study examined employees’ lived experience of taking part in a workplace sit-stand desk intervention, to understand the processes influencing feasibility and acceptability.MethodsParticipant observations and qualitative interviews were conducted with 15 employees from two office-based workplaces in the UK, as part of a process evaluation that ran alongside a pilot RCT of a workplace sit-stand desk intervention. Observational field notes and transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsThree themes related to the experience of using a sit-stand desk at work were generated: employees’ relationship with their sit-stand desk; aspirations and outcomes related to employee health and productivity; and cultural norms and interpersonal relationships. The perceived usability of the desk varied depending on how employees interacted with the desk within their personal and organisational context. Employees reported that the perceived influence of the desk on their productivity levels shaped use of the desk; those who perceived that standing increased energy and alertness tended to stand more often. Sit-stand desks were voiced as being more acceptable than intervention strategies that involve leaving the desk, as productivity was conflated with being at the desk.ConclusionsThe findings indicate a range of organisational, social-cultural and individual-level factors that shape the feasibility and acceptability of sit-stand desk use, and suggest strategies for improving employees’ experiences of using a sit-stand desk at work, which might positively influence sedentary behaviour reduction and health.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02172599, 22nd June 2014 (prospectively registered).

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

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

Impact and process evaluation of a co-designed 'Move More, Sit Less' intervention in a public sector workplace.

High levels of sitting are associated with increased risk of adverse health outcomes, including chronic disease. Extensive sitting at work is common, hence organisations should provide options to employees to reduce prolonged sitting. To assess the efficacy and acceptability of a co-designed intervention to increase standing and reduce sitting in a public-sector office. Forty-six adults participated in the quasi-experimental study (30 intervention; 16 control). The intervention involved providing sit-stand desks, prompts, workshops, and information emails to assist behavior change. Participants wore a thigh-mounted Actigraph GT3X+ for five working days and responded to an online questionnaire at baseline (BL), 6 (T1) and 13 weeks (T2) post intervention. Inclinometer-measured proportion of time standing increased in the intervention group from 14% (baseline) to 28% (T1) and 27% (T2) (67 minutes more standing over an 8-hour workday). Intervention participants reduced sitting time from 79% (BL) to 63% (T1 and T2), (80 minutes less sitting over an 8-hour workday). The control group showed no changes. The program was highly recommended (94%), and perceived to support behavior change (81%). This Move More, Sit Less intervention appears to be efficacious and acceptable. Future interventions should be co-designed to ensure culturally appropriate components and higher acceptability.