Sit-stand Desks Research Articles

The Physical And Psychological Effects Of Standing Desks In Office Workers

The present study demonstrates differences between energy expenditure in typical office workers and whether or not sit-stand desk options are beneficial. PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to determine differences in energy expenditure between sitting and standing in typically sedentary office workers. A secondary purpose of this study was to determine mindset differences with regards to job boredom, job stress, and job satisfaction. METHODS: Participants (N = 26, 4 males and 22 females) were from two moderately sized communities in the Midwest that had standing desk options available to them. Data was collected using BodyMedia SenseWear armbands for energy expenditure and self-reported Likert-scale surveys for psychological data. Data was collected during four sessions; two sitting sessions where participants were asked to not use their standing desk option, and two standing sessions where participants were allowed to stand as they desired. Data was analyzed using paired-samples t-tests to determine mean differences between energy expenditure and survey data. RESULTS: Results of the t-test for energy expenditure indicated the standing condition expended an average of 7.25 kcal more per hour than the sitting condition (t (24) -3.352, p = 0.003). No differences were found between average total survey data or specific question survey results (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest there is a statistically significant increase in energy expenditure when utilizing a standing desk option at the typical office workstation. Participants expressed improvements in mindset, but this difference was not statistically significant. Overall, individuals that participate in standing throughout the day rather than strictly sitting can increase energy expenditure while at their normal workstation, potentially resulting in increased weight loss and decreased negative health risk factors for typically sedentary office workers.

Daily and Weekly Standing Patterns When Using a Sit-Stand Desk in a College Class

Daily and Weekly Standing Patterns When Using a Sit-Stand Desk in a College Class

A Quantitative Evaluation of Electric Sit-Stand Desk Usage: 3-Month In-Situ Workplace Study

OCCUPATIONAL APPLICATIONSSit-stand desk interventions are deployed to reduce sedentary time and improve ergonomic adjustability in modern workplaces, with ultimate goals of improving health and productivity. Sit-stand desks, however, require workers to take an active role in changing the desk position, and usage compliance of the sit-stand function has been a challenge. This study used computer software to objectively record continuous data on electric sit-stand desk usage during computer use, to understand current desk usage behaviors in a large office environment involving ∼300 workers for 3 months. We found that workers completed roughly one desk position change per work day, and one-fourth of the workers always had the desk in a seated position (during computer use). The methods used here demonstrate a novel approach to record sit-stand desk usage continuously during active computer use.

Abstract P333: Characteristics Associated With Lower Blood Pressure When Using a Sit-Stand Desk

Introduction: In a recent randomized crossover trial, using a sit-stand desk to alternate postures resulted in small but statistically significant decreases in average blood pressure (BP) across a simulated workday. Hypothesis: We tested the hypothesis that certain baseline characteristics are associated with a greater acute BP-lowering response to use of a sit-stand desk. Methods: This secondary analysis used data from all subjects (n=25; 36% female; mean (SD) age 42 (12) years, screening baseline SBP 132 (9) mmHg and DBP 83 (8) mmHg, BMI 32 (5) kg/m 2 ) completing a randomized crossover study with two simulated workday conditions: 1) continuous sitting (SIT) and 2) alternating sitting and standing every 30 minutes (SS). Oscillometric BP was measured hourly. Average time spent sitting and in moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) were reported using the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire. Linear regression models identified whether participant characteristics (morning BP per 10 mmHg; age > 50 years; sex (female); MVPA ≥ 150 mins/week; sedentary time ≥ 10 hours/day; BMI ≥ 30 kg/m 2 ) were associated with a greater BP-lowering effect of using a sit-stand desk with a backward selection stepwise approach removing independent variables with P ≥ 0.2. Results: Lower morning baseline SBP (β = 2.8 mmHg per 10 mmHg, P = 0.012) and higher MVPA (β = -4.4 mmHg, P = 0.025) were associated with a greater SBP-lowering effect; higher age (β = -3.8 mmHg, P = 0.170) and higher BMI (β = 4.2 mmHg, P = 0.067) were retained in the model but were not statistically significant. Higher MVPA (β = -3.0 mmHg, P = 0.040) and lower BMI (β = 4.1 mmHg, P = 0.002) were associated with a greater DBP-lowering effect; female sex (β = -1.7 mmHg, P = 0.172) was retained in the model but was not statistically significant ( Figure 1 ). Conclusions: In conclusion, physically active, non-obese adults with lower SBP experienced the most beneficial BP response to intermittent standing. Future studies should investigate the mechanisms explaining this acute BP response.

The Impact of Active Workstations on Workplace Productivity and Performance: A Systematic Review.

Active workstations have been recommended for reducing sedentary behavior in the workplace. It is important to understand if the use of these workstations has an impact on worker productivity. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the effect of active workstations on workplace productivity and performance. A total of 3303 articles were initially identified by a systematic search and seven articles met eligibility criteria for inclusion. A quality appraisal was conducted to assess risk of bias, confounding, internal and external validity, and reporting. Most of the studies reported cognitive performance as opposed to productivity. Five studies assessed cognitive performance during use of an active workstation, usually in a single session. Sit-stand desks had no detrimental effect on performance, however, some studies with treadmill and cycling workstations identified potential decreases in performance. Many of the studies lacked the power required to achieve statistical significance. Three studies assessed workplace productivity after prolonged use of an active workstation for between 12 and 52 weeks. These studies reported no significant effect on productivity. Active workstations do not appear to decrease workplace performance.

Reducing sedentary behaviour to decrease chronic low back pain: the stand back randomised trial

ObjectiveThe Stand Back study evaluated the feasibility and effects of a multicomponent intervention targeting reduced prolonged sitting and pain self-management in desk workers with chronic low back pain (LBP).MethodsThis randomised...

Effect of alternating standing and sitting on blood pressure and pulse wave velocity during a simulated workday in adults with overweight/obesity.

Reducing prolonged sitting at work has been recommended by an expert panel, but whether intermittent standing improves vascular health is unclear. We aimed to test whether using a sit-stand desk could reduce blood pressure (BP) and pulse wave velocity (PWV) during a simulated workday. Overweight/obese adults with pre-to-Stage 1 hypertension completed a randomized crossover study with two simulated workday conditions: STAND-SIT (alternating standing and sitting condition every 30 min) and SIT (continuous sitting condition). Oscillometric BP was measured hourly. Carotid-femoral, carotid-radial, and carotid-ankle PWV were measured in the morning, mid-day, and late afternoon using tonometry. Participants [n = 25, 64% male, 84% white, mean (SD) age: 42 (12) years] had average resting SBP of 132 (9) mmHg and DBP of 83 (8) mmHg. In linear mixed models, STAND-SIT resulted in a significantly lower DBP (mean ± SE: -1.0 ± 0.4 mmHg, P = 0.020) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) (-1.0 ± 0.4 mmHg, P = 0.029) compared with SIT. SBP (-0.9 ± 0.7 mmHg, P = 0.176) was not different across conditions. Carotid-ankle PWV was significantly lower during the STAND-SIT vs. SIT condition (-0.27 ± 0.13 m/s, P = 0.047), whereas carotid-femoral PWV (-0.03 ± 0.13 m/s, P = 0.831) and carotid-radial PWV (-0.30 ± 0.18 m/s, P = 0.098) were not. Changes in MAP partially explained changes in PWV. Interrupting prolonged sitting during deskwork with intermittent standing was a sufficient stimulus to slightly, but statistically significantly, decrease DBP, MAP, and carotid-ankle PWV. Though the clinical significance of the observed effects is modest, regular use of a sit-stand desk may be a practical way to lower BP and PWV while performing deskwork.

Introducing sit-stand desks increases classroom standing time among university students.

Excessive sedentary behavior has been associated with many negative health outcomes. While an understudied health topic, there is evidence that university students are excessively sedentary. Sit-stand desks have been shown to reduce sedentary time among pre-university students (ages 5–18 years) and sedentary workers but have not been tested in university classrooms. This study tested the effects of introducing sit-stand desks into a university classroom on student's classroom sitting and standing behaviors. Using a cross-over design, students received access to both traditional seated desks and sit-stand desks for six weeks. Data were collected between September and December, 2016. We recruited 304 healthy undergraduate university students enrolled in one of two small (25 seats) classrooms at a large Midwestern university during the fall of 2016. Average minutes of standing/hour/student, average percent class time spent standing, and the number of sit-stand transitions/student/hour were directly observed with video camera surveillance. Participants stood significantly more (p < 0.001) when provided access to sit-stand desks (7.2 min/h/student; 9.3% of class time spent standing) compared to when they had access to seated desks (0.7 min/h/student; 1.6% of class time spent standing) but no differences were observed for the number of sit-stand transitions (p = 0.47). Students reported high favorability for the sit-stand desks and improvements in several student engagement and affective outcomes while using the sit-stand desks. These findings support introducing sit-stand desks in university classrooms as an approach to reduce sedentary behaviors of university students.

I’m still standing: A longitudinal study on the effect of a default nudge

Objective: This study assessed the effect of a default nudge to reduce sedentary behaviour at work over time.Design and main outcome measures: A field study was conducted at a governmental organisation. In the present study, the default setting of sit–stand desks (SSDs) was changed from sitting to standing height during a two-week intervention. Stand-up working rates were calculated based on observations that were done prior to, during, two weeks after and two months after the intervention. Additionally, a pre-measure survey (n = 606) and post-measure survey (n = 354) were completed. Intention and social norms concerning stand-up working were compared for the 183 employees who completed both pre- and post-assessments (45.4% female, Mage = 44.21).Results: Stand-up working rates raised from 1.82% in the baseline to 13.13% during the intervention. After the nudge was removed the percentage was 10.01% after two weeks and 7.78% after two months. A multilevel analysis indicated a significant increase in both intention and social norms after the nudge intervention.Conclusions: This study shows that a default nudge can increase stand-up working rates in offices with SSDs at least until two months after the nudge intervention.

Overselling Sit-Stand Desks: News Coverage of Workplace Sitting Guidelines

ABSTRACTThe first quantitative, specific recommendations for sitting time at work were released in June 2015. This paper examines the implications of news coverage received by this position statement. Media reports about statement published May, 31–June, 29, 2015 were analyzed according to five recommendations and three caveats extracted from the guidelines’ press release. Information about how physical activity was framed and mentions of conflicts of interest were recorded. Of 58 news reports, nine reported all five recommendations in the position paper. The topline recommendation (two hours daily of standing and light activity) was reported in all articles. Alleviating musculoskeletal discomfort by sitting less was not reported by 72% of reports. Physical activity was mentioned in 32 reports: 69% said physical activity did not attenuate the risks of prolonged sitting. No reports mentioned any potential conflicts of interest despite co-author links to sit-stand desk industry. These results demonstrate the need to balance public and market demands for public health guidance around sitting; and could encourage more accurate communication of research outcomes. The physical activity component of the “move more and sit less” message requires greater efforts to raise its public salience.

Australian employee perceptions of an organizational-level intervention to reduce sitting.

Stand Up Lendlease-a cluster-randomized trial targeting reductions in sitting time in Australian office workers (n = 153, 18 manager-led teams, 1 organization)-effectively reduced sitting time during work hours and across the day after 12 months. The trial included two arms: organizational-support strategies (e.g. manager support, emails) with or without an activity tracker. The current study aimed to examine participant perceptions of the intervention, and perceived barriers and facilitators for reducing sitting time. Telephone interviews (n = 50 participants; conducted at 6-10 months) and three focus groups (n = 21 participants; conducted at 16 months) evaluated the intervention with qualitative data analysed thematically. Several consistent themes emerged across both short and long-term time points and intervention groups. Support and role modelling of desired behaviours from important organization personnel and receiving feedback on sitting levels were key drivers of change. Improvements in awareness about sitting, and workplace culture changes supporting active work practices were positive impacts of the intervention, but some participants also reported that initial cultural effects had dissipated and the intervention needed 'reinvigoration'. Participants desired additional 'tools' to maintain sitting less and being active, such as sit-stand desks, standing meeting tables and activity trackers. In summary, the intervention raised awareness and initiated cultural changes towards active work practices, however, additional support may be required to maintain changes in organizational culture long term. Practical tools to support sitting changes, organizational and management support and role modelling, as well as ongoing 'reinvigoration' are key strategies for short and long-term intervention success in office workplaces.

Sit-Stand Desks To Reduce Workplace Sitting Time In Office Workers With Abdominal Obesity: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Sit-stand desks reduce workplace sitting time among healthy office workers; however, their metabolic and behavioral impact in higher risk populations remains unknown. 25 office workers with abdominal obesity were randomized to an intervention (sit-stand workstation) or control group (seated desk) for 12 weeks. Physical activity, sedentary behavior, and cardiometabolic risk factors were assessed before and after the intervention period in both groups. In comparison with the control group, which did not change, the intervention group experienced significant reductions in workday (344 ± 107 to 186 ± 101 min/day) and total (645 ± 140 to 528 ± 91 min/day) sitting time, as well as increases in workday standing time (154 ± 108 to 301 ± 101 min/day, P < .05). There were no changes in sitting or standing time outside of work hours, steps taken each day, or any marker of cardiometabolic risk in either group (all P > .05). Sit-stand desks were effective in reducing workplace sedentary behavior in an at-risk population, with no change in sedentary behavior or physical activity outside of work hours. However, these changes were not sufficient to improve markers of cardiometabolic risk in this population.

The Influence Of A Sit-stand Desk On Sleepiness, Physical Discomfort, Physical Fatigue And Mental Fatigue

Sleepiness, pain and fatigue significantly impact the productivity of office workers, and prolonged sitting may negatively impact these feelings during deskwork. Using a sit-stand desk could benefit these measures, but it is not clear. PURPOSE: To examine whether using a sit-stand desk to alternate posture could improve ratings of sleepiness, mental fatigue, physical fatigue and physical discomfort. METHODS: 25 inactive adults (age: 42 ± 12 yr; BMI: 31.9 ± 5.0 kg/m2) participated in a randomized cross-over study of two simulated 8-hr workdays (with a lunchbreak) while performing continuous sitting (SIT) or alternating sit-stand postures every 30 min (SIT-STAND). Ratings of sleepiness were measured by the 9-pt Karolinska Sleepiness Scale each hr while at the desk. A validated questionnaire measured the overall presence of physical discomfort, degree of physical discomfort (averaged across 10 body locations) and degree of physical and mental fatigue every 2 hr by 100-pt visual analog scales. Outcomes were checked for skewness and log transformed. Generalized linear mixed models, controlling for baseline values, evaluated differences across condition and time. RESULTS: Sleepiness increased across the day (p<0.001) and was lower in SIT-STAND vs. SIT (p=0.036). Mental fatigue was similar across time (p=0.095) and conditions (p=0.068). Comparing SIT-STAND to SIT, the presence of any physical discomfort was less frequently reported (p=0.006) and degree of physical discomfort was lower (p<0.001). The presence or degree of physical discomfort did not differ over time (p=0.378 and p=0.089, respectively). Physical fatigue was similar across the day (p=0.050) and conditions (p=0.712). (See table 1) CONCLUSION: Using a sit-stand desk during daily work activity resulted in better ratings of sleepiness and physical discomfort compared to sitting all workday. These measures are important for presenteeism of office workers and should be explored over a longer duration.

Effects Of A Sit-stand Desk In A College Class

Effects Of A Sit-stand Desk In A College Class

Use of a Sit-Stand Desk Reduces Wake Time During the Subsequent Night’s Sleep

Use of a Sit-Stand Desk Reduces Wake Time During the Subsequent Night’s Sleep

Reducing Sedentary Behavior to Decrease Low Back Pain

Low back pain (LBP) is a major public health problem. Preliminary data suggest that LBP increases throughout the workday for sedentary, desk-bound employees. PURPOSE: The Stand Back randomized trial evaluated whether an intervention targeting reduced prolonged sitting could decrease pain in desk workers with chronic LBP. METHODS: The study recruited individuals with chronic LBP, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) > 10%, and desk jobs (sitting ≥20 hr/wk). Participants in the intervention received behavioral counselling with an initial in-person visit followed by monthly telephone calls. They also received a sit-stand desk attachment with a goal to stand for 2 hr each day and an activity-prompting device set to vibrate after 30 min of inactivity. Goals were individually tailored and progressed during monthly contacts based on participant response. LBP was measured using the ODI. Sitting time (work and all day) was assessed by self-report. Outcomes were compared across intervention groups using paired t tests and linear mixed models. RESULTS: In completers (n=25 of n=27 enrolled), baseline mean (SD) age was 49 (11) years, 76% were female, and ODI was 23.9 (2.1) %. Sitting time at baseline was 6.9 (1.1) hr during work and 10.2 (1.6) hr all day. At 3 months, sitting time significantly decreased in intervention (n=13) vs. control (n=12) both during work [-2.0 (1.3) vs. -0.5 (1.2) hr, p=0.007] and all day [-2.5 (1.7) vs. -1.1 (1.6) hr, p=0.045]. Across months 1-3, the average decrease in ODI from baseline was significantly greater in intervention vs. control (difference between groups of -7.9 %, of p=0.007) (Figure). At 3 months, the decrease in ODI was -10.6 (8.7) % in intervention vs. -1.0 (10.4) % in control (p=0.020). CONCLUSION: An intervention targeting sedentary behavior in desk-bound employees with chronic LBP was effective in reducing sitting time and low back pain/disability. Studies are needed to examine longer term effects of sedentary behavior interventions in chronic LBP.Figure

Energy expenditure of deskwork when sitting, standing or alternating positions.

Recent guidelines recommend accruing 2-4h of standing or light activity during the working day. Use of sit-stand desks could achieve this goal, but whether standing can meaningfully increase energy expenditure (EE) is unclear. To study EE, heart rate, feelings and productivity during deskwork while sitting, standing or alternating positions. We measured EE by indirect calorimetry in working adults over three randomly ordered 60-min conditions while performing deskwork: continuous sitting (SIT), 30min of each standing and sitting (STAND-SIT) and continuous standing (STAND). We also assessed heart rate, productivity and self-reported energy, fatigue and pain. Linear mixed models compared minute-by-minute EE and heart rate across conditions. Non-parametric tests compared remaining outcomes across conditions. The study group comprised 18 working adults. Compared with SIT, STAND-SIT engendered an additional 5.5±12.4 kcal/h (7.8% increase) and STAND engendered an additional 8.2±15.9 kcal/h (11.5% increase) (both P < 0.001). Alternating positions to achieve the recommended 4h/day of standing could result in an additional 56.9 kcal/day for an 88.9kg man and 48.3 kcal/day for a 75.5kg woman. STAND-SIT and STAND also increased heart rate over SIT by 7.5±6.8 and 13.7±8.8 bpm, respectively (both P < 0.001). We observed no meaningful differences in feelings or productivity. Desk-based workers could increase EE without added discomfort by using a sit-stand desk. These findings inform future research on sit-stand desks as a part of workplace interventions to increase EE and potentially improve health.

Impact of sit-stand desks at work on energy expenditure and sedentary time: protocol for a feasibility study.

BackgroundProlonged sitting, an independent risk factor for disease development and premature mortality, is increasing in prevalence in high- and middle-income countries, with no signs of abating. Adults in such countries spend the largest proportion of their day in sedentary behaviour, most of which is accumulated at work. One promising method for reducing workplace sitting is the use of sit-stand desks. However, key uncertainties remain about this intervention, related to the quality of existing studies and a lack of focus on key outcomes, including energy expenditure. We are planning a randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of sit-stand desks at work on energy expenditure and sitting time in the short and longer term. To reduce the uncertainties related to the design of this trial, we propose a preliminary study to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the recruitment, allocation, measurement, retention and intervention procedures.MethodsFive hundred office-based employees from two companies in Cambridge, UK, will complete a survey to assess their interest in participating in a trial on the use of sit-stand desks at work. The workspaces of 100 of those interested in participating will be assessed for sit-stand desk installation suitability, and 20 participants will be randomised to either the use of sit-stand desks at work for 3 months or a waiting list control group. Energy expenditure and sitting time, measured via Actiheart and activPAL monitors, respectively, as well as cardio-metabolic and anthropometric outcomes and other outcomes relating to health and work performance, will be assessed in 10 randomly selected participants. All participants will also be interviewed about their experience of using the desks and participating in the study.DiscussionThe findings are expected to inform the design of a trial assessing the impact of sit-stand desks at work on short and longer term workplace sitting, taking into account their impact on energy expenditure and the extent to which their use has compensation effects outside the workplace. The findings from such a trial are expected to inform discussions regarding the potential of sit-stand desks at work to alleviate the harm to cardio-metabolic health arising from prolonged sitting.Trial registration ISRCTN44827407

Static and Active Workstations for Improving Workplace Physical Activity and Sitting Time

Purpose: There is growing evidence prolonged workplace sitting is associated with multiple health risks. Utilizing static and active workstations may help improve these health risks. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if providing access to a sit-stand workstation and a shared treadmill desk without a behavioural intervention could increase workplace physical activity and decrease sitting time. Methodology: Participants (N=15) were assigned to an experimental (sit-stand desk and shared treadmill desk; n=8) or control group (n=7) for seven weeks. No behavioural interventions were used to encourage participation. A physical activity questionnaire was administered at baseline and at the end of the study to assess workplace physical activity and sitting time. Participants wore an activity tracker (Fitbit One) to objectively assess daily footsteps and physically active hours. A mixed between-within subject analysis of variance was used to compare the groups (p 5000 steps/day. Practical Implications: This is the first study to examine the use of both static and active workstations to increase workplace physical activity and reduce sitting time without a behavioural intervention. Value: Combining static and active workstations with the addition of a behavioural intervention to promote and motivate the participants may produce significant improvements in workplace physical activity and reductions in sitting time.

Limitations of studies cast doubt on health benefits of sit-stand desk worktops

Limitations of studies cast doubt on health benefits of sit-stand desk worktops