Sitting Time In Office Workers Research Articles

Evaluating a multi-component intervention to reduce and break up office workers\u2019 sitting with sit-stand desks using the APEASE criteria

ObjectiveSedentary workplace interventions have had success in reducing excessive sitting time in office workers, but barriers to implementation and uptake remain. This study formally assessed a theory-derived, sit-stand desk intervention using the APEASE (Acceptability, Practicability, Effectiveness, Affordability, Side-effects, Equity) criteria. MethodsThirteen adults (eight female, mean age 38 ± 10 years) from the treatment arm of a sedentary behaviour intervention participated in semi-structured interviews. Thematic codes were inductively assigned to data items followed by deductive charting using the APEASE criteria. ResultsThe intervention was highly acceptable, practicable, safe to deploy, and helped workers reduce workplace sitting time, though individual preferences and workload mediated engagement. Affordability of sit-stand desks and Equity of access were potential barriers to uptake.Conclusions Through the lens of the APEASE criteria, this theory-derived, multi-component sit-stand desk intervention showed acceptability, practicability and effectiveness in reducing and breaking up sedentary time at work with minimal side effects. Using this approach with further tailoring and personalisation may help workers achieve greater reductions in workplace sitting, though affordability and equity should be considered further.

A Combined Health Action Process Approach and mHealth Intervention to Increase Non-Sedentary Behaviours in Office-Working Adults-A Randomised Controlled Trial.

Office-working adults represent an at-risk population for high levels of sedentary behaviour (SB), which has been associated with an increased risk for numerous chronic diseases. This study examined the effectiveness of a Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) based planning intervention augmented with tailored text messages to reduce workplace sitting time (primary outcome) and increase specific non-SBs (i.e. standing time, walking time, stretching time, break frequency, break duration). A secondary purpose was to examine relationships among HAPA volitional constructs and sedentary and non-SBs. Full-time office workers (Mage =45.18±11.33years) from Canada were randomised into either a HAPA intervention (n=29) or control (n=31) condition. Workplace sitting time, time spent in specific non-SBs, and HAPA volitional constructs were assessed at baseline, weeks 2, 4, 6 (post-intervention), and 8 (follow-up). Significant group by time interaction effects, that favoured the intervention group, were found for sitting time (p=.003, ɳp2 =.07), standing time (p=.019, ɳp2 =.05), and stretching time (p=.001, ɳp2 =.08) as well as for action planning (p<.001, ɳp2 =.20), coping planning (p<.001, ɳp2 =.18), and action control (p<.001, ɳp2 =.15). Significant correlations (p<.05) were also found between the HAPA constructs and time spent sitting, standing, walking, as well as break frequency. Augmenting a HAPA-based planning intervention with text messages can reduce workplace sitting time in office workers. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03461926.

Sedentary Behaviour and Diabetes Information as a Source of Motivation to Reduce Daily Sitting Time in Office Workers: A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial

Using the motivational phase of the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA), this study examined whether sedentary behaviour and diabetes information is a meaningful source of motivation to reduce daily sitting time among preintending office workers. Participants (N=218) were randomised into HAPA-intervention (sedentary behaviour), HAPA-attention control (physical activity), or control (no treatment) conditions. Following treatment, purpose-built sedentary-related HAPA motivational constructs (risk perception, outcome expectancies, self-efficacy) and goal intentions were assessed. Only participants who had given little thought to how much time they spent sitting (preintenders) were used in subsequent analyses (n=96). Significant main effects favouring the intervention group were reported for goal intentions: to increase number and length of daily breaks from sitting at work; to reduce daily sitting time outside of work; to increase daily time spent standing outside of work, as well as for outcome expectancies (p values≤.05; ɳp 2 values ≥.08). Only self-efficacy (β range=0.39-0.50) made significant and unique contributions to work and leisure-time-related goal intentions, explaining 11-21 per cent of the response variance. A brief, HAPA-based online intervention providing information regarding sedentary behaviour and diabetes risk may be an effective source of motivation.

Efficacy of a Multicomponent Intervention to Reduce Workplace Sitting Time in Office Workers: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of a work-based multicomponent intervention to reduce office workers' sitting time. Offices (n = 12; 89 workers) were randomized into an 8-week intervention (n = 48) incorporating organizational, individual, and environmental elements or control arm. Sitting time, physical activity, and cardiometabolic health were measured at baseline and after the intervention. Linear mixed modelling revealed no significant change in workplace sitting time, but changes in workplace prolonged sitting time (-39 min/shift), sit-upright transitions (7.8 per shift), and stepping time (12 min/shift) at follow-up were observed, in favor of the intervention group (P < 0.001). Results for cardiometabolic health markers were mixed. This short multicomponent workplace intervention was successful in reducing prolonged sitting and increasing physical activity in the workplace, although total sitting time was not reduced and the impact on cardiometabolic health was minimal.

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.