Use Of Sit-stand Workstations Research Articles

Pilot implementation and evaluation of the Sit-Stand e-Guide: an e-training program on the use of sit-stand workstations

The ‘Sit-Stand e-Guide’ e-training program, designed to promote appropriate use of sit-stand workstations (SSWs), was evaluated for usability, acceptability and impact on various outcomes among SSW users. Participants from a large municipal organisation (25% male; mean age 45 [SD = 10.6] years) completed questionnaires pre-training (T0, n = 57), immediately post-training (T1, n = 50), and four weeks (T2, n = 46: primary endpoint) and twelve months later (T3, n = 30). High usability, acceptability and usefulness scores were reported at T1. Median [IQR] knowledge (4.4/5 [0.9]) and confidence (4.6/5 [1.0]) significantly increased at T1 compared to baseline (2.8 [1.2]; 3.3 [1.4]) and maintained at T2 and T3. At T2, mean [SD] sitting time (5.3 [1.2] h/workday) and low back discomfort (2.4 [2.3]) significantly decreased compared to baseline (6.1 [1.3] h; 3.4 [2.5] discomfort), SSW usage increased (1.4 [1.4]–2.8 [1.7] transitions), with no significant changes in work performance. Some behavioural changes were sustained at T3. The Sit-Stand e-Guide was acceptable and effective; evaluation across diverse workplaces and workers is now needed.

Co-design and development of the sit-stand e-guide: An e-training program for the optimal use of sit-stand workstations

This paper describes the co-design and development process of an evidence-informed e-training program (Sit-Stand e-Guide) to support the safe and optimal use of sit-stand workstations from ergonomics and behavioural change perspectives. Using an instructional system design process, supported by a participatory design approach, data was collected through three workshops with workplace consumers (staff [n = 5] and managers [n = 5]), and subject matter experts (n = 5). Content and learning activities were developed based on behaviour change principles and optimal pedagogy. Key topics identified for the e-training were sedentary behaviour and health; workstation set-up; and strategies for behaviour change. Learning activities (scenarios and reflection) to enhance knowledge retention and skills implementation and an interactive one-page guide on completion were included in the e-training. The relevance and usefulness of the training prototype were reviewed through one-to-one think-aloud sessions with the workshop consumers (n = 5) and external health and safety professionals (n = 5) receiving positive feedback. The Sit-Stand e-Guide is readily available for workplace implementation and evaluation. This paper serves as a practical guide for future training development.

Usage of sit-stand workstations: Benefits and barriers from decision makers’ perspective in Australia

The aim of this cross-sectional mixed-method study was to understand the current use, and practices to support the implementation, of sit-stand workstations (SSWs) from the perspective of furniture purchasing decision makers in Australian organisations. An online survey, and in-depth interviews with a purposive sub-sample were conducted. A total of 216 eligible participants from 150 organisations across 18 sectors completed the survey with 17 interviews conducted. 40% of organisations provided SSWs on request while 41% reported not using them appropriately. Over half provided no training on the appropriate use of SSWs (n = 109, 51%) nor used any strategies to enhance their use (n = 163, 84%). From the interviews, SSWs were perceived effective in reducing discomforts and increasing employees’ satisfaction and productivity. Lack of resources and guidelines to support SSW usage, and lack of wellbeing knowledge, were identified as barriers. Education and ongoing monitoring are important to enhance the appropriate use and uptake of SSWs.

Efficacy of the \u2018Stand and Move at Work\u2019 multicomponent workplace intervention to reduce sedentary time and improve cardiometabolic risk: a group randomized clinical trial

BackgroundSedentary time is associated with chronic disease and premature mortality. We tested a multilevel workplace intervention with and without sit-stand workstations to reduce sedentary time and lower cardiometabolic risk.MethodsStand and Move at Work was a group (cluster) randomized trial conducted between January 2016 and December 2017 among full-time employees; ≥18 years; and in academic, industry/healthcare, and government worksites in Phoenix, Arizona and Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. Eligible worksites were randomized to (a) MOVE+, a multilevel intervention targeting reduction in sedentary time and increases in light physical activity (LPA); or (b) STAND+, the MOVE+ intervention along with sit-stand workstations to allow employees to sit or stand while working. The primary endpoints were objectively-measured workplace sitting and LPA at 12 months. The secondary endpoint was a clustered cardiometabolic risk score (blood pressure, glucose, insulin, triglycerides, and HDL-cholesterol) at 12 months.ResultsWorksites (N = 24; academic [n = 8], industry/healthcare [n = 8], and government [n = 8] sectors) and employees (N = 630; 27 ± 8 per worksite; 45 ± 11 years of age, 74% female) were enrolled. All worksites were retained and 487 participants completed the intervention and provided data for the primary endpoint. The adjusted between arm difference in sitting at 12 months was − 59.2 (CI: − 74.6,-43.8) min per 8 h workday, favoring STAND+, and in LPA at 12 months was + 2.2 (− 0.9,5.4) min per 8 h workday. Change in the clustered metabolic risk score was small and not statistically significant, but favored STAND+. In an exploratory subgroup of 95 participants with prediabetes or diabetes, the effect sizes were larger and clinically meaningful, all favoring STAND+, including blood glucose, triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, LDL-cholesterol, body weight, and body fat.ConclusionsMultilevel workplace interventions that include the use of sit-stand workstations are effective for large reductions in sitting time over 12 months. Among those with prediabetes or diabetes, clinical improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors and body weight may be realized.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02566317. Registered 2 October 2015, first participant enrolled 11 January 2016.

The user and non-user perspective: Experiences of office workers with long-term access to sit-stand workstations.

Sit-stand workstations have been shown to be effective in reducing sitting time in office workers. The aim of this study was to explore reasons for use and non-use of sit-stand workstations and strategies to decrease sitting and increase physical activity in the workplace from perspectives of users and non-users, as well as from managers and ergo-coaches. Six group interviews with employees who have had access to sit-stand workstations for several years were conducted in a large semi-governmental organisation in the Netherlands. Verbatim transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Open coding was conducted by three researchers and codes and themes were discussed within the research team. Thematic analysis resulted in two major themes: 1) Reasons for use and non-use and 2) Strategies to increase standing and physical activity in the workplace. Shared and distinct reasons for use and non-use were identified between users and non-users of the sit-stand workstations. The most important reasons for use indicated by users were that they had experiencing immediate benefits, including staying alert and increasing focus; these benefits were not acknowledged by non-users. Non-users indicated that sitting was comfortable for them and that they were therefore not motivated to use the standing option. Strategies to increase the use of the standing option included an introductory phase to become familiar with working while standing and to experience the immediate benefits that come from using the standing option. Furthermore, providing reminders to use the standing option was suggested as a strategy to increase and sustain the use of sit-stand workstations. Increased use may lead to a change in the sitting culture within the organisation, as more employees would adopt active movement behaviours. Immediate benefits of the use of the standing option-only mentioned by the users-was the most distinct reason to use sit-stand workstations. Future research should explore how to motivate potential users to adhere to an introductory phase in order to experience these immediate benefits, whether it is linked to the use of sit-stand workstations or other interventions to reduce sitting time.

Abstract P499: 24-month Follow-up Of The ‘Stand And Move At Work’ Sedentary Behavior Intervention: Effects On Workplace Sitting Time

Multicomponent interventions that use sit-stand workstations (SSW) to reduce workplace sitting time have been largely successful. However, the long-term maintenance (i.e., >12 months) of this behavior change is relatively unknown. We aimed to evaluate the 24-month maintenance of reductions in workplace sitting time, along with the effects of introducing the SSW after 12 months of multicomponent intervention only. We used data from Stand and Move at Work, a two-arm multi-site group randomized trial of 24 worksites (12 worksites per arm; N=630, 74% female, 45±11 years of age). Worksites in the STAND+ arm received 12 months of a multilevel (i.e., worksite policy, environmental, and individual-level strategies) intervention to increase light-intensity physical activity, along with a SSW, to increase standing time. Worksites in the MOVE+ arm (i.e., comparator) received the same multilevel intervention but were not provided with the SSW until after the intervention ended at 12 months. Sitting time was assessed for 7 consecutive days using the activPAL3c micro accelerometer at baseline, 12, and 24 months. Results are presented below in table form. In STAND+ , sitting time at 24 months, relative to baseline, was significantly reduced and similar in magnitude of change to what was observed at 12 months. In MOVE+ , sitting time at 24 months (a year after the SSW was introduced), relative to baseline, was significantly reduced but markedly smaller in magnitude of change than observed during the STAND+ active intervention period (i.e., 0 to 12 months). These results support the use of SSW coupled with a multicomponent intervention for optimal and long-term maintenance of reductions in workplace sitting time. Hierarchical regression models were adjusted for worksite clustering, age, sex, and baseline BMI.

Long-Term Access to Sit-Stand Workstations in a Large Office Population: User Profiles Reveal Differences in Sitting Time and Perceptions.

Background: To decrease the detrimental health effects of prolonged sitting, the implementation of sit-stand workstations is a commonly used intervention for office workers. Most studies on this topic evaluated the effects of newly introduced sit-stand workstations. The objective of this study was to determine how often and how long the standing option is used and how the use of sit-stand workstations is perceived in office workers with long-term access to these workstations. Methods: Using an online survey, 1098 office employees responded to questions about frequency of usage of the sit-stand workstation, sitting time, physical activity, and positive and negative perceptions of the use of the sit-stand workstations. Results: Based on the frequency of use, three user groups were identified: non-users (32.1%), monthly/weekly users (37.5%) and daily users (30.4%). Non-users reported to sit more, stand less and have longer bouts of sitting, compared to monthly/weekly users, and these differences were even larger compared to daily users. A higher proportion of daily users perceived the use of the sit-stand workstation as being more healthy and appealing and making them more productive and energetic compared to the non-users. A higher proportion of the non-users perceived it as being uncomfortable, distracting, and unpractical, compared to the other user groups. Conclusions: The differences between the three identified user groups with respect to sitting, standing and perceptions of sit-stand workstations, might be helpful in tailoring future interventions to reduce occupational sitting time, to increase the reach, effectiveness and sustainability.

Sit-stand workstations and impact on low back discomfort: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Sit-stand workstations are proposed solutions to reduce sedentary time at work. Numerous companies are using them to mitigate health concerns such as musculoskeletal discomfort. Objective: To review the literature on sit-stand workstations and low back discomfort. Method: We conducted a meta-analysis on literature published before 17 November 2016 that addressed the relationship between sit-stand workstations and musculoskeletal discomfort, focusing on the low back. Results: Twelve articles were identified and eight that presented results in means (SD) were included. Among a pain-free population, the standardised mean difference was −0.230 for low back discomfort with use of sit-stand workstations. When applying the SMD to studies using the 10-point pain scale, the effect estimates ranged between −0.30 and −0.51. Conclusion: sit-stand workstations may reduce low back pain among workers. Further research is needed to help quantify dosage parameters and other health outcomes.Practitioner Summary: In a sedentary population, changing posture may reduce the chance of developing low back pain. The literature lacks studies on specific populations such as those who have pre-existing low back pain and also does not adequately address the dosage of sit-stand time required to help reduce pain.

An intervention to reduce sitting and increase light-intensity physical activity at work: Design and rationale of the ‘Stand & Move at Work’ group randomized trial

BackgroundAmerican workers spend 70–80% of their time at work being sedentary. Traditional approaches to increase moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) may be perceived to be harmful to productivity. Approaches that target reductions in sedentary behavior and/or increases in standing or light-intensity physical activity [LPA] may not interfere with productivity and may be more feasible to achieve through small changes accumulated throughout the workday Methods/designThis group randomized trial (i.e., cluster randomized trial) will test the relative efficacy of two sedentary behavior focused interventions in 24 worksites across two states (N=720 workers). The MOVE+ intervention is a multilevel individual, social, environmental, and organizational intervention targeting increases in light-intensity physical activity in the workplace. The STAND+ intervention is the MOVE+ intervention with the addition of the installation and use of sit-stand workstations to reduce sedentary behavior and enhance light-intensity physical activity opportunities. Our primary outcome will be objectively-measured changes in sedentary behavior and light-intensity physical activity over 12months, with additional process measures at 3months and longer-term sustainability outcomes at 24months. Our secondary outcomes will be a clustered cardiometabolic risk score (comprised of fasting glucose, insulin, triglycerides, HDL-cholesterol, and blood pressure), workplace productivity, and job satisfaction DiscussionThis study will determine the efficacy of a multi-level workplace intervention (including the use of a sit-stand workstation) to reduce sedentary behavior and increase LPA and concomitant impact on cardiometabolic health, workplace productivity, and satisfaction.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02566317 (date of registration: 10/1/2015).

The effect of sit-stand workstations to decrease sedentariness in office work

Sedentary behaviors in office workers has become a major public health concern and several initiatives have been proposed to break up sedentary behavior patterns during the performance of computer-intensive office work (Neuhaus et al., 2014; Toomingas et al., 2012). Among such initiatives, the use of sit-stand workstations has been suggested to be one of the most promising by recent reviews (Commissaris et al., 2015). However, there still is only limited scientific evidence showing how effective sit-stand workstations are, in reducing sedentary behaviors and also documentation of their sustainability of use in studies of regular office work (i.e. as the “newness” of the system wears off, with time since introduction). This study aimed to document user behaviors and compare the use of two sit-stand workstation based interventions among two groups of administrative office workers: an “autonomous” group in which these workstations were introduced following some general ergonomic guidelines, and another “feedback-system” group in which the sit-stand tables were furnished with an automatic reminder system: users were prompted to accept, delay or refuse pre-programmed changes in table position, and if they accepted, the system automatically raised the table to a high (i.e. standing) position. This system was programmed for 10 minutes of standing after every accumulated 50 minutes of the table being in a low (i.e. sitting) position. In addition to documenting average use of the two sit-stand workstations, the sustainability of their use over two continuous months since their introduction was also studied. The results averaged over two months of usage of the two interventions showed that the percentage (%) sitting time was 87.4 (84.9-89.2) and 84.0 (83.5-85.4) on average ( P=0.001), and the frequency of switches between sitting and standing was 0.3 (0.2-0.3) per hour and 0.7 (0.6-0.7) per hour ( P=0.001) in the autonomous and feedback-system groups respectively. These usage behaviors were found to be stable over the entire 2 months of use in both groups. Thus, the sit-stand table system integrated with the automatic reminder system led to more reduction in sitting time and more switches in posture between sitting and standing as compared to the traditional sit-stand table, and behaviors of both groups were seen to be sustained over the 2-month intervention period. In conclusion, a semi-automated sit-stand table may thus offer an effective contribution to making sedentary behavior patterns more variable among office workers, and thus aid in preventing negative health effects associated with prolonged sitting times.

Evaluation of sit-stand workstations in an office setting: a randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundExcessive sitting time is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease mortality and morbidity independent of physical activity. This aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a sit-stand workstation on sitting time, and vascular, metabolic and musculoskeletal outcomes in office workers, and to investigate workstation acceptability and feasibility.MethodsA two-arm, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial was conducted in one organisation. Participants were asymptomatic full-time office workers aged ≥18 years. Each participant in the intervention arm had a sit-stand workstation installed on their workplace desk for 8 weeks. Participants in the control arm received no intervention. The primary outcome was workplace sitting time, assessed at 0, 4 and 8 weeks by an ecological momentary assessment diary. Secondary behavioural, cardiometabolic and musculoskeletal outcomes were assessed. Acceptability and feasibility were assessed via questionnaire and interview. ANCOVA and magnitude-based inferences examined intervention effects relative to controls at 4 and 8 weeks. Participants and researchers were not blind to group allocation.ResultsForty-seven participants were randomised (intervention n = 26; control n = 21). Relative to the control group at 8 weeks, the intervention group had a beneficial decrease in sitting time (−80.2 min/8-h workday (95 % CI = −129.0, −31.4); p = 0.002), increase in standing time (72.9 min/8-h workday (21.2, 124.6); p = 0.007) and decrease in total cholesterol (−0.40 mmol/L (−0.79, −0.003); p = 0.049). No harmful changes in musculoskeletal discomfort/pain were observed relative to controls, and beneficial changes in flow-mediated dilation and diastolic blood pressure were observed. Most participants self-reported that the workstation was easy to use and their work-related productivity did not decrease when using the device. Factors that negatively influenced workstation use were workstation design, the social environment, work tasks and habits.ConclusionShort-term use of a feasible sit-stand workstation reduced daily sitting time and led to beneficial improvements in cardiometabolic risk parameters in asymptomatic office workers. These findings imply that if the observed use of the sit-stand workstations continued over a longer duration, sit-stand workstations may have important ramifications for the prevention and reduction of cardiometabolic risk in a large proportion of the working population.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02496507.

A randomised control trial of the cognitive effects of working in a seated as opposed to a standing position in office workers

Sedentary behaviour is increasing and has been identified as a potential significant health risk, particularly for desk-based employees. The development of sit-stand workstations in the workplace is one approach to reduce sedentary behaviour. However, there is uncertainty about the effects of sit-stand workstations on cognitive functioning. A sample of 36 university staff participated in a within-subjects randomised control trial examining the effect of sitting vs. standing for one hour per day for five consecutive days on attention, information processing speed, short-term memory, working memory and task efficiency. The results of the study showed no statistically significant difference in cognitive performance or work efficiency between the sitting and standing conditions, with all effect sizes being small to very small (all ds < .2). This result suggests that the use of sit-stand workstations is not associated with a reduction in cognitive performance.Practitioner Summary: Although it has been reported that the use of sit-stand desks may help offset adverse health effects of prolonged sitting, there is scant evidence about changes in productivity. This randomised control study showed that there was no difference between sitting and standing for one hour on cognitive function or task efficiency in university staff.

Effects of Adjustable Sit-stand VDT Workstations on Workers' Musculoskeletal Discomfort, Alertness and Performance

Adjustable sit-stand workstations, which are designed to allow workers to sit and stand autonomously while working, were examined to identify the effects on workers' musculoskeletal discomfort, alertness and performance. Twenty-four healthy subjects participated in the study. The subjects were required to do an English transcription task for 150 min under the following conditions: 1) sitting at standard workstations (Standard), 2) sitting on a chair with the work surface elevated to standing position (High-chair) and 3) a combination of 10-min sitting and 5-min standing with the same setting as that in the high-chair condition (Sit-stand). The subjective musculoskeletal discomfort scores indicated that High-chair and Sit-stand resulted in relatively higher discomfort levels than the Standard condition. Although the ratio between low-frequency (0.04-0.15 Hz) and high-frequency (0.15-0.4 Hz) components of heart rate variability (LF/HF ratio) in Sit-stand was higher than that in other conditions, there were no significant differences in subjective sleepiness among the three conditions. As for work performance, there was a tendency to be steadily high under the Sit-stand condition compared with other conditions, but not a significant difference. This study revealed that although the use of sit-stand workstations can contribute to keeping workers' arousal level steady, it has an adverse effect in light of musculoskeletal discomfort.