Workplace Sedentary Behaviour Research Articles

A Social Cognitive Assessment of Workplace Sedentary Behavior among a Sample of University Employees.

Sedentary behavior (SB) is an important public health concern. Adults working in desk-based occupations spend a considerable proportion of the workday sitting. More information is needed regarding the factors that contribute to occupational SB. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of social cognitive theory (SCT) to explain work-related SB using a quantitative, cross-sectional design by administering an online questionnaire. Participants included 381 full-time employees at a large, public university in the south-central United States. Hierarchical multiple linear regression was used to determine the relationship between SCT constructs and SB. Mean work-related SB was 5.95 (SD = 1.30) h/8 h workday. In model 1, 9.6% of the total variance in SB was accounted for by standing desk ownership and physical activity level (p = 0.001; R2 = 0.096). In model 2, SCT constructs led to a statistically significant R2 increase of 4.9% (p < 0.001), where standing desk ownership, physical activity, and self-efficacy explained 13.3% of the variance in work-related SB. Findings from this study suggest that self-efficacy may be an important factor in explaining variation in occupational SB. Public health researchers and practitioners should consider strategies to address self-efficacy when developing workplace interventions to target occupational SB.

O9-3 Reducing workplace sedentary behaviour: An exploration of the facilitators and barriers to professional men reducing prolonged sedentary behaviour

IntroductionThere is a growing interest in workplace interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour. Professional males are most at risk of prolonged sedentary behaviour, are considered difficult to reach in terms of recruitment to studies, and may require targeted health promotion interventions. Research on the views of senior managers and executives as well as employees in a professional setting in relatively underdeveloped. Studies have shown that a ?one size fits all' approach is not suitable in behaviour change interventions. The aim of this study was to qualitatively explore professional male workers' facilitators and barriers to reducing workplace sedentary behaviour and their views on suggested intervention strategies to ensure relevance and practicality of the intervention in each specific context.MethodsThree semi-structured focus groups and one interview were conducted with a purposive sample of 25 professional men (15 employees and 10 senior managers). The men were recruited using convenience sampling from two professional worksites in Dublin, Ireland. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsThe men identified a range of intrapersonal, interpersonal and organisational barriers and facilitators to reducing workplace sedentary behaviour. Perceived facilitators included individual motivation, the formation of new habits likely through small changes, management buy-in and support and organisational culture. Perceived barriers included the primacy of work, job requirements of being desk-bound, and management expectations. Views of suggested strategies for a novel multicomponent intervention to target the determinants of sedentary behaviour as informed by the socio-ecological model were positive overall.ConclusionsThe needs, preferences and opinions of professional men to participate in a workplace intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour should be taken into consideration prior to implementation in a workplace setting. This is important to ensure relevance and the practicality of intervention strategies in the particular settings.

Sedentary Work and Physiological Markers of Health.

The purpose of this study is to examine associations between objectively measured workplace sedentary behavior and physiological markers of health. We hypothesize that increased sedentary time and more frequent bouts of uninterrupted sitting are associated with increased hemoglobin A1c, increased blood pressure, and impaired endothelial function. Call center employees (N = 241) were enrolled from four worksites in the United States. Participants completed a survey and a physical health assessment. Sedentary behavior and sitting/standing time at work were quantified using an accelerometer. Hemoglobin A1c was measured using a finger-prick and portable analyzer. Blood pressure was measured with an automated cuff, and vascular endothelial function was assessed in a subsample of participants (n = 56) using EndoPAT. We analyzed data with two series of ordinary least squares regressions, first to examine relationships between bouts of uninterrupted sitting and physiological outcomes, and second to examine relationships between physical activity and sitting/standing time at work and physiological outcomes. The sample was primarily female, and on average was obese, prehypertensive, and prediabetic. There were no significant relationships between bouts of uninterrupted sitting or physical activity/sitting/standing time at work and physiological outcomes. In a sample that is predominantly sedentary, at risk for cardiovascular disease, and prediabetic, there are no significant associations between workplace sedentary behavior and physiological markers. The lack of associations could be related to either physiological adaptations or ceiling effects in this sample.

The active workplace study: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial with sedentary workers

ObjectivesSedentary behavior is pervasive in the workplace and is harmful to health. Research on the effectiveness of comprehensive workplace interventions to reduce sedentary behavior and improve worker health and safety is crucial as sedentary jobs become more common. MethodsWe developed a Total Worker Health intervention targeting sedentary behavior in call centers, and are evaluating intervention effectiveness in a randomized controlled trial. Four worksites will be randomly assigned to an intervention or control condition. The intervention condition includes the provision of active workstations along with programs and procedures at environmental, organizational, and individual levels. Control worksites will receive active workstations with no additional support, following common organizational practices. ResultsOutcomes include objectively measured physical activity, biological markers of health, and self-report survey data at baseline, after the 6-month intervention or control period, and at a 12-month follow-up. ConclusionsThe aims of the study are to determine whether a Total Worker Health intervention has stronger impacts on workplace sedentary behavior, uninterrupted bouts of sitting, and worker health and safety compared to a usual practice control condition. The study will inform future workplace sedentary behavior intervention and dissemination research, along with organizational best practices for reducing sedentary behavior in the workplace.

“Occupational sitting kills; but who cares?”: Quantitative analysis of barriers and facilitators of sedentary behavior in Indian white-collar workers

The knowledge, attitude and practices of employees and employers toward reducing sedentary behavior (SB) and improving physical activity (PA) at Indian workplaces remain unclear. A bespoke questionnaire assessing barriers and facilitators of occupational SB and PA practices as informed by the theoretical framework and behavioral change wheel model was adapted. Two hundred and three white-collar workers (both employees and managers) from eight corporate sectors were inquired about the SB, and PA practices at workplaces. The dichotomous variables of barriers and facilitators were analyzed by nonparametric tests. Excessive sitters had good knowledge (>75%), good attitude (>85%) but poor workplace SB and PA practice (>90%). Workplace SB, or PA practices differed between employers and employees. Low practice of workplace PA or SB interventions may be due to lack of workplace policies for SB interventions.

Workplace Sedentary Behavior and Productivity: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Reducing sedentary behavior in the workplace has become an important public health priority; however, some employers have expressed concerns regarding the potential for reduced productivity if employees are not seated while at work. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the relationship between workplace sedentary behavior (sitting time) and work productivity among full-time office-based employees, and further to investigate other potential factors associated with productivity. A 19-item online self-report survey was completed by 2068 government employees in Kansas. The survey assessed workplace sedentary behavior, work productivity, job satisfaction, and fatigue. Overall, office workers reported high levels of sedentary time (mean > 78%). The primary results indicated that sitting time was not significantly associated with productivity (β = 0.013, p = 0.519), but job satisfaction and fatigue were positively (β = 0.473, p < 0.001) and negatively (β = −0.047, p = 0.023) associated with productivity, respectively. Furthermore, participants with the highest level of sitting time (>91% of the time) reported lower job satisfaction and greater fatigue as compared with the lowest level of sitting time (<75% of the time). Taken together, these results offer promising support that less sitting time is associated with positive outcomes that do not seem to come at the expense of productivity.

Australian office workers' response to sedentary behaviour messaging

PurposeTo provide insight into how office workers respond to sedentary health messages following the introduction of the Australian Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines.Design/methodology/approachVia online survey, office workers (n = 185) reported awareness of the Guidelines and sedentary risk, availability of workplace movement-based initiatives, and measures of sitting time, intention, self-efficacy, and perceived barriers to sedentary behaviour. Participants then viewed one of two brief messages (“Occupational Risk” or “Strategies”); indicated their message receptivity and provided written recommendations. Participants who consented to a second survey (n = 126) completed sitting time and psychological measures again after four weeks.FindingsOnly 23% were aware of the Guidelines; willingness to follow public health guidance was mixed. Barriers to adoption were apparent for existing initiatives. Message receptivity was high for both messages. For the follow-up survey, an improvement in psychological variables and workplace sitting was reported in those who viewed the Occupational Risk compared to the Strategies message. Qualitative analysis revealed lack of organisational support and called for increased employer responsibility.Research limitations/implicationsAs participants self-selected into the study, the sample may be more health-conscious than the typical office worker.Practical implicationsWorkers are receptive to brief messages and the Occupational Risk message showed promise in promoting change. However, sedentary exposure is viewed as an organisational-level issue. A “whole of workplace” approach is needed with co-designed strategies tailored to the culture and working practices within the organisation.Originality/valueThis study offers insight into avenues for improving the management of prolonged sitting and workplace sedentary behaviour.

Abstract P500: 24-Month Follow-Up of the ‘Stand and Move at Work’ Sedentary Behavior Intervention: Effects on Cardiometabolic Risk in Those With Dysglycemia

Long-term effects of workplace sedentary behavior interventions on cardiometabolic risk are poorly understood. Stand and Move at Work was a multi-site group randomized trial in 24 worksites (N=630, 74% female, 45±11 years of age) of office-based employees in Phoenix, AZ and Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN. Worksites in the STAND+ study 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 sit-stand workstation (SSW) to increase standing time. Worksites in the MOVE+ study arm received the same multilevel intervention but were not provided the SSW until after the intervention ended at 12 months. The STAND+ arm, but not the MOVE+ arm, had significant reductions in sedentary time over the 12-month intervention. However, 12-month improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors were only observed among a subgroup with dysglycemia (prediabetes or diabetes). Here we report the long-term follow-up of these changes, 12 months after the end of the trial (24 months). Results are shown in the Table. The effects at 12 months were largely sustained at 24 months. Although limited by the small sample size in this subgroup, long-term meaningful and sustained improvement in blood glucose, triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, and weight may be observed from a multilevel workplace sedentary behavior intervention that includes sit-stand workstations.

\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).

Social-ecological correlates of accelerometer-measured occupational sitting among Japanese desk-based workers

BackgroundAlthough the main targets for reducing workplace sedentary behavior have been clarified, only a few studies have examined the association between social-ecological factors and workplace sedentary behavior for effective intervention. The present study aimed to examine the social-ecological factors of workplace sedentary behavior among Japanese sedentary workers.MethodsParticipants were recruited via a cross-sectional mail survey targeting randomly sampled 6000 middle-aged people dwelling in Matsuyama-city and Koto-ku in Japan. Participants answered a questionnaire on social-ecological factors, recorded their work time in a diary, and wore a triaxial accelerometer during waking time for 7 consecutive days. Workplace sedentary behavior was measured using accelerometer and was referred to as the work time in the recorded diary. Full-time workers who had mainly sitting work and valid accelerometer data were included in the analysis. Workplace sedentary variables were sedentary breaks per sedentary hour, sedentary time, and ≥ 30 min bouts of sedentary time. The associations between each sedentary variable and social-ecological factors were explored by conducting three multiple linear regression analyses adjusting for sociodemographic and health-related factors.ResultsA total of 227 participants (133 men, mean age 49.9 ± 6.9 years) were included in the analysis. In the overall sample, “typically seeing work colleagues take sedentary breaks” was significantly associated with more sedentary breaks (B [95% confidence interval {CI}=1.40 [0.07 to 2.73]) and shorter ≥30-min bouts of sedentary time (B [95% CI] = −7.08 [−13.75 to −0.40]). “I am motivated to take sedentary breaks” had an unfavorable association with less sedentary breaks (B [95% CI] = −1.36 [−2.61 to −0.12]) and longer sedentary time (B [95% CI] = 4.15 [0.29 to 8.00]). In male workers, “Too stressed to take sedentary breaks” was significantly associated with less sedentary breaks (B [95% CI] = −5.6 [−9.17 to −2.02]).ConclusionsSeeing work colleagues take sedentary breaks may be important for reducing workplace sedentary behavior. Those who are more sedentary are motivated to take sedentary breaks. Male workers who feel the need to take sedentary breaks at work are more sedentary.

Understanding and Influencing Occupational Sedentary Behavior: A Mixed-Methods Approach in a Multiethnic Asian Population.

We aim to assess sedentary behavior (SB) and its determinants, as well as potential strategies to reduce SB among employees in a tertiary hospital in Singapore, using a mixed-methods approach grounded in the socioecological framework. All employees with email and security guards of a tertiary hospital in Singapore were invited to complete a questionnaire that captured sociodemographics and self-reported domain-specific SB. Environmental influences of occupational SB were assessed using an adapted version of the Checklist for Health Promotion Environments at the Worksite (CHEW). Focus group discussion (FGD) addressed perceptions, barriers, and strategies toward reducing workplace SB. Analyses were performed separately and integrated using an inductive comparative approach. The median occupational sitting time (n = 938) was 300 minutes/day, and highest among administrative staff (administrative, 421 minutes/day; allied health, 300 minutes/day; ancillary, 300 minutes/day; nursing, 120 minutes/day; medical/dental/others, 240 minutes/day; p value: <.001). The CHEW assessment identified poor physical and information environment contributing to occupational SB. FGDs confirmed an unsupportive environment and elicited barriers such as low SB awareness, nature of work, and workplace norms. Besides environmental approaches, participants suggested having face-to-face communication and social modelling to promote more breaks from sitting. This mixed-methods study among diverse professional groups of a tertiary hospital indicated a large amount of occupational SB, particularly among administrative staff. Raising awareness of the health risks of SB and building a supportive organizational culture, information, and physical environment emerged as significant factors. To reduce occupational SB, multicomponent interventions addressing these diverse factors are warranted.

The Effectiveness of Sedentary Behaviour Reduction Workplace Interventions on Cardiometabolic Risk Markers: A Systematic Review.

Sedentary behaviour is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The aims of this work were to systematically review the effects of workplace sedentary behaviour reduction interventions on cardiometabolic risk markers (primary aim) and identify the active behaviour change techniques (BCTs) by which these interventions work (secondary aim). A systematic search of 11 databases for articles published up to 12 April 2019 yielded a total of 4255 unique titles, with 29 articles being identified for inclusion. Interventions were rated as very promising, quite promising or non-promising based on their effects on cardiometabolic risk markers compared with baseline and/or a comparison arm. Interventions were coded for BCTs used. To assess the relative effectiveness of BCTs, a promise ratio was calculated as the frequency of a BCT appearing in all promising interventions divided by its frequency of appearance in all non-promising interventions. A narrative synthesis included 29 published studies of varying study design and comprised of 30 interventions. Risk of bias was high for blinding and allocation concealment, moderate for random sequence generation, and low for outcome assessment. Nine interventions were very promising, 11 were quite promising, 10 were non-promising, and 10 active control groups did not experience cardiometabolic changes. Significant sedentary behaviour reductions were present in all but five studies where cardiometabolic risk markers improved. The BCTs of social comparison, problem solving, demonstration of the behaviour, goal setting (behaviour), behaviour substitution, and habit reversal, demonstrated moderate to high promise ratios. Workplace interventions show promise for improving cardiometabolic risk markers. The BCTs with the greatest promise of cardiometabolic risk marker improvements included social comparison,those related to individual habits, and behaviour goals. This systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017072427).

Workplace health beliefs concerning physical activity and sedentary behaviour.

Sedentary behaviour (SB) in the form of uninterrupted sitting constitutes a risk factor for chronic disease that is independent of the risks associated with insufficient physical activity (PA). However, little is known about employee and manager health beliefs concerning SB and PA. We assess health beliefs of desk-based workers concerning PA and SB accrued at work versus during leisure. We ask whether recreational PA attenuates the perceived ill-health effects of prolonged occupational SB, and compare attitudes of employees and managers to interventions aimed at reducing/interrupting workplace sitting. Two hundred and twenty-two desk-based employees and 121 managers located in Melbourne, Australia, rated the healthiness of vignettes describing combinations of uninterrupted sitting, sitting with breaks, light PA and moderate-to-vigorous PA accumulated at work and during leisure time. Participants also responded to open-ended questions concerning the implications of reducing workplace sitting. Mixed-model ANOVA revealed that the presence of leisure-time PA greatly diminished the perceived detrimental effects to health of workplace sitting. Subsequent thematic analysis of qualitative data further revealed that participants' concerns with SB were primarily musculoskeletal and workplace performance rather than chronic health. Employees and their managers do not rate uninterrupted sitting as being unhealthy when it is presented to them in the form of an 'active couch potato' lifestyle (a person who meets minimum PA recommendations but spends much of their work time and non-PA time sitting). We recommend that interventions targeting workplace SB take into account the contextual nature of health beliefs.

Workplace-Related Factors Associated With Employees' Standing Time at Work: A Research Brief.

The purpose of this study was to identify the relationship between work-related, individual, and environmental factors and self-reported standing time during the workday. Cross-sectional study design. Participants were recruited from a large, public university in the southeastern United States. Data were collected through an 87-item online survey using previously validated scales that assessed workplace standing time, demographic variables, work-related psychosocial factors, and workplace environment factors. One-way analysis of variance, Pearson correlation coefficients, and nonparametric tests were used to determine univariate relationships between standing time and independent work-related variables and demographic factors. Mean standing time among the sample (n = 502) was 72.49 minutes (standard deviation = 73.48) daily. There was a significant relationship between standing time and barrier self-efficacy for standing at work, self-regulation strategies, social norms, local connectivity in the workplace, overall connectivity in the workplace, and proximity of coworkers. Standing time was significantly higher for men, employees with an advanced degree, employees with a standing desk, and faculty. Health promotion researchers and practitioners should consider factors at multiple levels of influence when designing studies to explore workplace sedentary behavior. The findings regarding variations in workplace behavior by employee subgroups should be taken into consideration when designing future studies in the workplace.

Sit-Stand Desk Software Can Now Monitor and Prompt Office Workers to Change Health Behaviors.

Objective:To determine the effectiveness of a computer-based intervention designed to increase sit-stand desk usage and help reverse workplace physical inactivity.Background:Sit-stand desks have been successful in reducing workplace sedentary behavior, but the challenge remains for an effective method to increase the usage in order to experience the health and productivity benefits.Method:Data collection (1-year field study with 194 workers) used a novel method of computer software that continuously recorded objective electric sit-stand desk usage, while taking into account the time a worker spends away from their desk (breaks, meetings). During the baseline period, all workers’ desk usage was recorded by the software, and the intervention period consisted of software reminders and real-time feedback to all workers to change desk positions. Pooled means were calculated to determine desk usage patterns, and effect sizes and pairwise mean differences were analyzed to test for intervention significance.Results:The intervention doubled desk usage by increasing ~1 change to ~2 changes per work day. There was a 76% reduction in workers who never used the sit-stand function of the desk. Medium to large effect sizes from the intervention were observed in all three primary outcome measures (desk in sitting/standing position and desk position changes per work day).Conclusion:These findings demonstrate an effective intervention that increased postural transitioning and interrupted prolonged inactivity while remaining at the workstation.Application:The methods and results in this research study show that we can quantify an increase in desk usage and collect aggregate data continuously.

Perceptions of the acceptability and feasibility of reducing occupational sitting: review and thematic synthesis

BackgroundReducing workplace sedentary behaviour (sitting) is a topic of contemporary public health and occupational health interest. Understanding workers’ perspectives on the feasibility and acceptability of strategies, and barriers and facilitators to reducing workplace sitting time, can help inform the design and implementation of targeted interventions. The aim of this qualitative synthesis was to identify and synthesise the evidence on factors perceived to influence the acceptability and feasibility of reducing sitting at work, without, and with, an associated intervention component.MethodsA systematic search of the peer-reviewed literature was conducted across multiple databases in October 2017 to identify studies with a qualitative component relating to reducing workplace sitting time. Relevant data were extracted and imported into NVivo, and analysed by three of the authors by coding the results sections of papers line-by-line, with codes organised into sub-themes and then into overarching themes. Studies with and without an associated intervention were analysed separately.ResultsThirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria, 22 of which had collected qualitative data during and/or following a workplace intervention. Sample sizes ranged from five through to 71 participants. Studies predominately involved desk-based workers (28/32) and were most frequently conducted in Australia, USA or the United Kingdom (26/32). Similar themes were identified across non-intervention and intervention studies, particularly relating to barriers and facilitators to reducing workplace sitting. Predominately, work and social environment attributes were identified as barriers/facilitators, with desk-based work and work pressures influencing the perceived feasibility of reducing sitting, particularly for low-cost interventions. Support from co-workers and managers was considered a key facilitator to reducing sitting, while social norms that discouraged movement were a prominent barrier. Across all studies, some consistent perceptions of benefits to reducing sitting were identified, including improved physical health, enhanced emotional well-being and associated work-related benefits.ConclusionCommon barriers and facilitators to reducing workplace sitting time were identified across the literature, most prominently involving the social environment and job-related demands. These findings can inform the design and implementation of workplace sitting reduction strategies. To increase the generalisability of findings, further research is needed in a more diverse range of countries and industries.

Changes in Sitting Time and Sitting Fragmentation after a Workplace Sedentary Behaviour Intervention.

Prolonged sedentary behaviour (SB) has shown to be detrimental to health. Nevertheless, population levels of SB are high and interventions to decrease SB are needed. This study aimed to explore the effect of a personalized intervention aimed at reducing SB and increasing breaks in SB among college employees. A pre-experimental study design was used. Participants (n = 36) were recruited at a college in Massachusetts, USA. SB was measured over 7 consecutive days using an activPAL3 accelerometer. Following baseline measures, all participants received a personalized SB consultation which focused on limiting bouts of SB >30 min, participants also received weekly follow-up e-mails. Post-intervention measures were taken after 16 weeks. Primary outcome variables were sedentary minutes/day and SB bouts >30 min. Differences between baseline and follow-up were analyzed using paired t-tests. The intervention did not change daily sedentary time (−0.48%; p > 0.05). The number of sedentary bouts >30 min decreased significantly by 0.52 bouts/day (p = 0.010). In this study, a personalized SB intervention was successful in reducing number of bouts >30 min of SB. However, daily sedentary time did not reduce significantly. These results indicate that personalized, consultation-based interventions may be effective if focused on a specific component of SB.

Informing Workplace Sedentary Behavior Interventions Through Momentary Affective States And Email-based Prompts.

PURPOSE: The study aimed to (a) examine the effect of momentary affective states on workplace sedentary behavior (WSB); and (b) test the proximal effects of email-based prompts on WSB. METHODS: Office workers with sit-stand desks were recruited in a two-part 20-workday study. In part A, participants completed ecological momentary assessments (EMA; at 3 random times/day) of affective states. Each EMA response was matched with behavioral outcomes (i.e., time spent sedentary, standing, or moving proceeding each EMA response). Part B involved a micro-randomized prompt-based trial. Prompt delivery was randomized to be sent (ST) or not sent (NST) to all participants (probability of 0.5), at eight decision points per day between 9am and 5pm. Half of the prompts encouraged standing and the other half encouraged moving. An activPAL device was used continuously through the 20 days to measure WSB. Multilevel models were used to examine the associations of workplace behaviors and affective states. General estimating equations were used to examine the likelihood of a response to a prompt (i.e., transition from sitting to standing/moving) over the proceeding 5 and 30 min intervals. All models were adjusted for age, gender, race, and job type. RESULTS: Participants (N = 18; 56% females) who completed part A contributed 493 EMA responses (27.4±13.3 EMA responses/participant). When examining momentary relationships, individuals sat less (b[SE]= -3.9[1.8], p=.02) and stood more (b[SE]= 3.5[1.6], p=.02) in the hour following higher than usual energy and sat less (b[SE]= -2.8[1.4], p=.04) and moved more (b[SE]= 1.2[0.4], p<.01) following higher than usual intentions to stand/ move. Among participants (N = 15; 67% female; age = 50.9 ± 9.5yrs) who completed part B, 1147 decision points occurred when seated. Participants were 42% more likely to transition from sitting to standing within 5 mins when a prompt was sent (OR[95%CI] = 1.4[1.1, 1.8], p<.01). Stand prompts were 25% more likely to elicit a transition (OR[95%CI] = 1.6[1.2, 2.0], p<.01) than move prompts (OR[95%CI] = 1.3[1.0, 1.7], p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Prompts may be an effective complementary strategy to encourage sit-stand desks use. Information regarding context (i.e., affective states and intentions) may complement these findings in developing just-in-time interventions.

Recruitment Strategies for Cluster Randomized Controlled Trials Targeting Workplace Sedentary Behavior- a Retrospective Review

Increased demand for sedentary behavior reduction in workplace environments has led to the planning of large-scale interventions implemented at the group level in the form of cluster randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To date, limited evidence is available regarding cluster RCT recruitment strategies. PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to provide a review of recruitment strategies employed in a large cluster RCT targeting a reduction in workplace sedentary behavior. METHODS: Recruitment yields ([N enrolled/N screened] x 100) were calculated. Mean (±SD) and median worksite sizes were calculated at each recruitment step. The percentage of participants who progressed to each recruitment step (of the total N screened per worksite) was calculated to determine the mean percentage of a worksite successfully randomized. Recruitment barriers and modifications were recorded by the research team. A survey was completed by a subset of non-participants (N = 57) and thematic analyses conducted to examine reasons for non-participation, positive impacts and negative experiences. RESULTS: Cluster recruitment yield was 43% (24 worksites enrolled/56 screened). Individual recruitment yield was 49% (641 employees enrolled/1317 screened). On average, 52 ± 16% of the worksite was successfully randomized. Eighteen modifications were developed to overcome participant-related, context-related and research-related barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should plan to screen at least 200% of the intended number of worksites and they should target worksites that are approximately double the size of the intended cluster size to avoid loss of statistical power or timeline extensions. Acknowledging temporal fluctuations in worksite-specific workloads, providing options throughout the recruitment process, and adopting a participant-centered approach may facilitate cluster RCT success.

Ecological Influences on Employees' Workplace Sedentary Behavior: A Cross-Sectional Study.

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between ecological factors and occupational sedentary behavior (SB). Cross-sectional online survey. Participants were employees recruited from a large, public university in the Southeastern United States from August to November 2016. The final sample included 527 (56% response rate) employees. Data were collected through an 87-item survey using previously validated scales that assessed occupational SB, perceived behavioral control, barrier self-efficacy, self-regulation strategies, organizational social norms, office environment, and worksite climate. One-way analysis of variance analyses were used to determine differences in occupational SB by demographic factors. A multivariate regression model was used to determine significant ecological determinants of occupational SB. Mean SB was 342.45 (standard deviation = 133.25) minutes. Significant differences in SB were found by gender, education, and employment classification. Barrier self-efficacy and workplace connectivity, which evaluates the spatial layout of the office setting that may impact mobility within the workplace, were significant predictors of SB in the multivariate model. Results from this study provide new information regarding the potential impact of workplace barriers and connectivity on occupational SB. The findings from this study support the inclusion of intervention modalities to minimize workplace barriers and increase workplace connectivity to increase workplace mobility and decrease SB.