Workplace Sitting Research Articles

Organizational Culture and Implications for Workplace Interventions to Reduce Sitting Time Among Office-Based Workers: A Systematic Review.

Background: Time spent in sedentary behaviors is an independent risk factor for several chronic diseases (e.g., cardiometabolic diseases, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and hypertension). Recently, interventions to reduce sitting time at work (a prominent sedentary behavior) have been developed and tested. Organizational culture plays a critical role in the success of workplace interventions. However, there are a limited number of studies that have examined the role of organizational culture in reducing sitting time in the workplace.Objectives: Therefore, in this systematic review, we summarized the empirical literature investigating organizational culture and sedentary behavior in the workplace and identify gaps in the knowledge base.Methods: We described the procedures of our systematic review and included two study flow diagrams that detailed the step by step process. Combinations of several search terms were used; the databases searched were PubMed, Medline, Academic Search Complete, and Google Scholar. We started with thousands of citations. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, eight relevant articles were identified.Results: For each identified article, the data extracted included citation, sample, objective, intervention, assessment of organizational culture and workplace sitting, findings, and implications. Each article was rated for risk of bias by population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) analysis. The classification for each study was either: high-, moderate-, or low-quality evidence. Given the paucity of data, no definitive conclusions were presented; however, positive trends were highlighted.Conclusions: Work place interventions to reduce sitting time at work may benefit from considering elements of organizational culture; however, the evidence to date is sparse and more high-quality studies in this area are needed. To advance the field of workplace health promotion, organizational culture, and interventions to reduce sitting at work, we present 11 recommendations.

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.

PMU33 - Economic Evaluation of A Randomised Controlled Trial of An Intervention to Reduce Desk-Based Workers' Sitting Time: The Stand-Up Victoria Trial

Interventions to reduce workplace sitting time have been shown to be effective, but little is known about their cost-effectiveness. This study assessed the economic credentials of a workplace-delivered intervention to reduce sitting time in desk-based workers. Within-trial cost-efficacy analysis and long-term cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) modelled for the Australian population were performed. In total, 231 desk-based workers aged 24-65 years of one organisation were recruited in a clustered randomized controlled trial. A multicomponent workplace-delivered intervention (including organizational, environmental [sit-stand workstations], and individual [health coaching] intervention elements) was compared to usual practice. Total device-measured workplace sitting time (primary), Body Mass Index (BMI: kg/m2), self-reported health-related quality of life (measured by Assessment of Quality of Life-8D), and absenteeism were measured at 12 months. Compared to usual practice, the intervention was associated with greater cost (AUD431/person) and benefits in terms of reduced workplace sitting time (-46.8 mins/8-h workday, 95% confidence interval: -69.9 to -23.7) and increased workplace standing time (42.2 mins/8-h workday, 23.8 to 60.6). However, there were no significant benefits for BMI (0.148 kg/m2 [-1.407 to 1.703]), AQoL-8D (-0.006 [-0.074 to 0.063]) or absenteeism (2.12 days [-2.01 to 6.26]). The incremental cost-efficacy ratios ranged from AUD9.94 cost/minute reduction in workplace sitting time to AUD13.37/minute reduction in overall sitting time. The intervention contributed to higher life year gains (LY) (0.01 [0.009 to 0.011]), higher health-adjusted life year gains (HALY) (0.012 [0.0105 to 0.0135]), and higher net costs (AUD344 [$331 to $358]), with corresponding incremental cost effectiveness ratios of AUD34,443/LY and $28,703/HALY. CEA results were sensitive to assumptions surrounding intervention-effect decay rate and discount rate. The intervention was cost-effective over the lifetime of the cohort when scaled up to the national workforce. It provides important evidence for policy makers and workplaces regarding allocation of resources to reduce workplace sitting.

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.

Assessing the Feasibility and Pre-Post Impact Evaluation of the Beta (Test) Version of the BeUpstanding Champion Toolkit in Reducing Workplace Sitting: Pilot Study.

BackgroundThe Web-based, evidence-informed BeUpstanding Champion Toolkit was developed to provide employers (via a “train-the-champion approach”) with resources and support to help in reducing prolonged sitting in their own desk-based workplace. As part of a five-phase research-to-dissemination process, this study reports on the evaluation of the beta (test) version of this toolkit (Phase 2).ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to evaluate (1) the implementation of the toolkit by workplace champions and (2) the impact of the toolkit on sitting (primary outcome), standing, and moving; use of activity-promoting strategies; knowledge and attitudes; and indicators of health and work performance.MethodsAn implementation study using a pre-post design was conducted in 7 desk-based workplaces in Australia (September 2015 to May 2016), with work teams (one per workplace) purposively recruited to ensure representation across a range of sectors (white- or blue-collar), organizational sizes (small or medium or large), and locations (metropolitan or regional). All staff within participating teams were invited to participate in the relevant toolkit activities. Implementation outcomes (time commitment required by champions and toolkit activities completed) were collected from each champion via telephone interviews. Changes in impact outcomes, measured via a Web-based questionnaire completed by employees at baseline and 3 months postimplementation, were assessed using mixed models, correcting for clustering.ResultsChampions reported a 30-60 minutes per week time commitment to the toolkit activities. All teams formed a wellbeing committee and sent the staff surveys at both time points; most champions held a staff consultation workshop (6/7), identified team-level strategies within that workshop (5/7), used the communication resources provided within the toolkit (emails, posters; 6/7), and completed the action plan (5/7). In total, 52% (315 of ≈600) employees participated in at least one survey and 97 (16%) participated in both. At follow-up, there was a significant (P<.05) reduction in self-reported workplace sitting time compared to baseline (−6.3%, 95% CI −10.1 to −2.5; n=85) equating to ≈30 minutes per workday. Significant benefits were also observed for the use of activity-promoting strategies, with small, nonsignificant changes observed for knowledge and attitudes and indicators of health and work performance.ConclusionsThe beta version of the BeUpstanding Champion Toolkit was feasible to implement and effective in reducing self-reported workplace sitting across a broad range of desk-based workplaces. The next phase (Phase 3) will build on these findings to optimize the toolkit for wider-scale implementation and longer term evaluation.

The development, implementation and evaluation of interventions to reduce workplace sitting: a qualitative systematic review and evidence-based operational framework

BackgroundProlonged sitting is associated with increased risks of cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, some cancers, musculoskeletal disorders and premature mortality. Workplaces contribute to a large proportion of daily sitting time, particularly among office-based workers. Interventions to reduce workplace sitting therefore represent important public health initiatives. Previous systematic reviews suggest such interventions can be effective but have reported wide variations. Further, there is uncertainty as to whether effectiveness in controlled trials can be replicated when implemented outside the research setting. The aims of this review are to identify factors important for the implementation of workplace sitting interventions and to translate these findings into a useful operational framework to support the future implementation of such interventions.MethodsA qualitative systematic review was conducted. Four health and social science databases were searched for studies set in the workplace, with office-based employees and with the primary aim of reducing workplace sitting. Extracted data were primarily from author descriptions of interventions and their implementation. Inductive thematic analysis and synthesis was undertaken.ResultsForty studies met the inclusion criteria. Nine descriptive themes were identified from which emerged three higher-order analytical themes, which related to the development, implementation and evaluation of workplace sitting interventions. Key findings included: the importance of grounding interventions in theory; utilising participative approaches during intervention development and implementation; and conducting comprehensive process and outcome evaluations. There was a general under-reporting of information relating to the context within which workplace sitting interventions were implemented, such as details of local organisation processes and structures, as well as the wider political and economic landscape, which if present would aid the translation of knowledge into “real-world” settings.ConclusionsThese findings provided the basis for an operational framework, which is a representation of all nine descriptive themes and three higher-order analytical themes, to support workplace sitting intervention development, implementation and evaluation. Once tested and refined, this framework has the potential to be incorporated into a practical toolkit, which could be used by a range of organisations to develop, implement and evaluate their own interventions to reduce workplace sitting time amongst staff.

"Could you sit down please?" A qualitative analysis of employees' experiences of standing in normally-seated workplace meetings.

Office workers spend most of their working day sitting, and prolonged sitting has been associated with increased risk of poor health. Standing in meetings has been proposed as a strategy by which to reduce workplace sitting but little is known about the standing experience. This study documented workers’ experiences of standing in normally seated meetings. Twenty-five participants (18+ years), recruited from three UK universities, volunteered to stand in 3 separate, seated meetings that they were already scheduled to attend. They were instructed to stand when and for however long they deemed appropriate, and gave semi-structured interviews after each meeting. Verbatim transcripts were analysed using Framework Analysis. Four themes, central to the experience of standing in meetings, were extracted: physical challenges to standing; implications of standing for meeting engagement; standing as norm violation; and standing as appropriation of power. Participants typically experienced some physical discomfort from prolonged standing, apparently due to choosing to stand for as long as possible, and noted practical difficulties of fully engaging in meetings while standing. Many participants experienced marked psychological discomfort due to concern at being seen to be violating a strong perceived sitting norm. While standing when leading the meeting was felt to confer a sense of power and control, when not leading the meeting participants felt uncomfortable at being misperceived to be challenging the authority of other attendees. These findings reveal important barriers to standing in normally-seated meetings, and suggest strategies for acclimatising to standing during meetings. Physical discomfort might be offset by building standing time slowly and incorporating more sit-stand transitions. Psychological discomfort may be lessened by notifying other attendees about intentions to stand. Organisational buy-in to promotional strategies for standing may be required to dispel perceptions of sitting norms, and to progress a wider workplace health and wellbeing agenda.

Blood Pressure Response to Interrupting Workplace Sitting Time With Non-Exercise Physical Activity: Results of a 12-Month Cohort Study.

Objective:To evaluate the blood pressure (BP) effects of a yearlong e-health solution designed to interrupt prolonged occupational sitting time.Methods:BP data of 228 desk-based employees (45.1 ± 10.5 years) were analyzed at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.Results:Systolic BP significantly reduced from baseline for the first 9 months (1.0 to 3.4 mmHg; P < 0.01) while diastolic and mean arterial pressure decreased for the full 12-months (4 to 5 mmHg for diastolic pressure and 3.6 to 4.2 mmHg for MAP; all P < 0.01).Participants used the e-health solution 5.5 ± 2.0 times/day in the first 3 months which reduced to 4.2 ± 2.5 times/day by the end of the study (P < 0.05).Conclusions:An e-health solution designed to increase non-exercise physical activity by interrupting sitting time in the workplace is feasible and produced long-term reductions in blood pressure.

Associations between the Objectively Measured Office Environment and Workplace Step Count and Sitting Time: Cross-Sectional Analyses from the Active Buildings Study.

Office-based workers spend a large proportion of the day sitting and tend to have low overall activity levels. Despite some evidence that features of the external physical environment are associated with physical activity, little is known about the influence of the spatial layout of the internal environment on movement, and the majority of data use self-report. This study investigated associations between objectively-measured sitting time and activity levels and the spatial layout of office floors in a sample of UK office-based workers. Participants wore activPAL accelerometers for at least three consecutive workdays. Primary outcomes were steps and proportion of sitting time per working hour. Primary exposures were office spatial layout, which was objectively-measured by deriving key spatial variables: ‘distance from each workstation to key office destinations’, ‘distance from participant’s workstation to all other workstations’, ‘visibility of co-workers’, and workstation ‘closeness’. 131 participants from 10 organisations were included. Fifty-four per cent were female, 81% were white, and the majority had a managerial or professional role (72%) in their organisation. The average proportion of the working hour spent sitting was 0.7 (SD 0.15); participants took on average 444 (SD 210) steps per working hour. Models adjusted for confounders revealed significant negative associations between step count and distance from each workstation to all other office destinations (e.g., B = −4.66, 95% CI: −8.12, −1.12, p < 0.01) and nearest office destinations (e.g., B = −6.45, 95% CI: −11.88, −0.41, p < 0.05) and visibility of workstations when standing (B = −2.35, 95% CI: −3.53, −1.18, p < 0.001). The magnitude of these associations was small. There were no associations between spatial variables and sitting time per work hour. Contrary to our hypothesis, the further participants were from office destinations the less they walked, suggesting that changing the relative distance between workstations and other destinations on the same floor may not be the most fruitful target for promoting walking and reducing sitting in the workplace. However, reported effect sizes were very small and based on cross-sectional analyses. The approaches developed in this study could be applied to other office buildings to establish whether a specific office typology may yield more promising results.

Perceived Availability of Office Shared Spaces and Workplace Sitting: Moderation by Organizational Norms and Behavioral Autonomy

A large amount of time spent sitting is a newly identified health risk. Although desk-based workers spend much of their time at work sitting, little is known about how office spaces may be related to workplace sitting time. This study examined cross-sectional associations of the perceived availability of office shared spaces with workers’ sitting time, and the potential role of workplace normative-social factors in the relationship. Participants ( N = 221) wore an activity monitor (activPAL3) and reported availability of shared spaces (for formal meetings, informal discussion, collaborative working), organizational norms, and workplace behavioral autonomy. No shared-space variables were associated with workplace sitting time. However, the perceived availability of sufficient informal discussion space was associated with lower levels of sitting among those who reported more-supportive organizational norms and greater behavioral autonomy. These findings highlight environmental, organizational, and psychosocial factors that will be important to address in future initiatives to reduce work place sitting time.

Chronic Effects Of Replacing Workplace Sitting With Upright Activities On Human Popliteal Artery Shear Rate

Chronic Effects Of Replacing Workplace Sitting With Upright Activities On Human Popliteal Artery Shear Rate

Associations of office workers’ objectively assessed occupational sitting, standing and stepping time with musculoskeletal symptoms

We examined the association of musculoskeletal symptoms (MSS) with workplace sitting, standing and stepping time, as well as sitting and standing time accumulation (i.e. usual bout duration of these activities), measured objectively with the activPAL3 monitor. Using baseline data from the Stand Up Victoria trial (216 office workers, 14 workplaces), cross-sectional associations of occupational activities with self-reported MSS (low-back, upper and lower extremity symptoms in the last three months) were examined using probit regression, correcting for clustering and adjusting for confounders. Sitting bout duration was significantly (p < 0.05) associated, non-linearly, with MSS, such that those in the middle tertile displayed the highest prevalence of upper extremity symptoms. Other associations were non-significant but sometimes involved large differences in symptom prevalence (e.g. 38%) by activity. Though causation is unclear, these non-linear associations suggest that sitting and its alternatives (i.e. standing and stepping) interact with MSS and this should be considered when designing safe work systems.Practitioner summary: We studied associations of objectively assessed occupational activities with musculoskeletal symptoms in office workers. Workers who accumulated longer sitting bouts reported fewer upper extremity symptoms. Total activity duration was not significantly associated with musculoskeletal symptoms. We underline the importance of considering total volumes and patterns of activity time in musculoskeletal research.

Usage, Acceptability, and Effectiveness of an Activity Tracker in a Randomized Trial of a Workplace Sitting Intervention: Mixed-Methods Evaluation.

BackgroundWearable activity trackers are now a common feature of workplace wellness programs; however, their ability to impact sitting time (the behavior in which most of the desk-based workday is spent) is relatively unknown. This study evaluated the LUMOback, an activity tracker that targets sitting time, as part of a cluster-randomized workplace sitting intervention in desk-based office workers.ObjectiveStudy objectives were to explore: (1) office workers’ self-directed LUMOback use, (2) individual-level characteristics associated with LUMOback use, (3) the impact of LUMOback use on activity and sitting behaviors, and (4) office workers’ perceived LUMOback acceptability.MethodsExploratory analyses were conducted within the activity tracker intervention group (n=66) of a 2-arm cluster-randomized trial (n=153) with follow-up at 3 and 12 months. The intervention, delivered from within the workplace, consisted of organizational support strategies (eg, manager support, emails) to stand up, sit less, and move more, plus the provision of a LUMOback activity tracker. The LUMOback, worn belted around the waist, provides real-time sitting feedback through a mobile app. LUMOback usage data (n=62), Web-based questionnaires (n=33), activPAL-assessed sitting, prolonged (≥30 min bouts) and nonprolonged (<30 min bouts) sitting, standing and stepping time (7-day, 24 h/day protocol; n=40), and telephone interviews (n=27) were used to evaluate study aims. LUMOback usage data were downloaded and described. Associations between user characteristics and LUMOback usage (in the first 3 months) were analyzed using zero-inflated negative binomial models. Associations between LUMOback usage and 3-month activity outcomes were analyzed using mixed models, correcting for cluster. LUMOback acceptability was explored using 3-month questionnaire data and thematic analysis of telephone interviews (conducted 6 to 10 months post intervention commencement).ResultsTracker uptake was modest (43/61, 70%), and among users, usage over the first 3 months was low (1-48 days, median 8). Usage was greatest among team leaders and those with low self-perceived scores for job control and supervisor relationships. Greater tracker use (≥5 days vs <5 days) was significantly associated only with changes in prolonged unbroken sitting (−50.7 min/16 h; 95% CI −94.0 to −7.3; P=.02) during all waking hours, and changes in nonprolonged sitting (+32.5 min/10 h; 95% CI 5.0 to 59.9; P=.02) during work hours. Participants found the LUMOback easy to use but only somewhat comfortable. Qualitatively, participants valued the real-time app feedback. Nonuptake was attributed to being busy and setup issues. Low usage was attributed to discomfort wearing the LUMOback.ConclusionsThe LUMOback—although able to reduce prolonged sitting time—was only used to a limited extent, and its low usage may provide a partial explanation for the limited behavior changes that occurred. Discomfort limited the feasibility of the LUMOback for ongoing use. Such findings yield insight into how to improve upon implementing activity trackers in workplace settings.

Long-term effects of sit-stand workstations on workplace sitting: A natural experiment

ObjectiveSit-stand workstations may result in significant reductions in workplace sitting. However, few studies have examined long-term maintenance under real-world conditions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate workplace sitting time, cardio-metabolic biomarkers, and work productivity during a workplace re-design which included the installation of sit-stand workstations. DesignNatural experiment with appropriately matched comparison. MethodsOffice workers from distinct worksites in the same unit were recruited (Intervention, n=24; Comparison, n=12). Intervention arm participants received a sit-stand workstation and 4 months of sitting-specific motivational support. The comparison arm received 4 months of ergonomic focused motivational support. Time spent in sitting, standing, and other physical activity were measured by activPAL3c for a week. Cardio-metabolic biomarkers and work productivity were also measured. Assessments occurred at baseline, 4 months, and 18 months. ResultsAt 4 months, work sitting time was reduced by 56.7±89.1min/8h workday (d=−0.64), relative to comparison. Standing time (37.4±69.2min/8h workday; d=0.54) and sit-to-stand transitions (3.3±0.4min/8h workday, d=0.44) were also improved relative to comparison. At 18 months, work sitting time reductions (52.6±68.3min/8h workday; d=−0.77) and standing time improvements (17.7±54.8min/8h workday, d=0.32) were maintained in the intervention group relative to comparison. Cardio-metabolic and work productivity changes were mixed; however, strongest effects favoring the intervention group were observed at 18 months. ConclusionsSit-stand workstations, accompanied with behavioral support, were effective in reducing workplace and overall daily sitting and increasing standing time in a real-world setting. The effect appears to have been sustained for 18 months, with mixed results in cardio-metabolic and productivity outcomes.

"It's not an Obvious Issue, Is It?" Office-Based Employees' Perceptions of Prolonged Sitting at Work: A Qualitative Study.

Current UK workplace health promotion guidance recommends that employers minimize sedentary behaviors, but understanding the issues relating to prolonged workplace sitting has received little empirical attention. This study aimed to explore employees' perceptions of sitting time. Participants at a small to medium-sized UK company were invited to join one of five focus groups. A framework analysis approach was used. Self-reported mean estimate of occupational sitting time was 6.4 hours/day with a mean estimate of leisure time sitting 6.5 hours/nonwork days. The study highlighted employees' lack of appreciation of the health risks associated with sedentary behavior. This study has highlighted that in addition to personal determinants, the workplace environment and organizational culture have a key role in supporting employees' potential adoption of healthier sitting behavior in the workplace.

Reliability and validity of self-reported sitting and breaks from sitting in the workplace

ObjectivesProlonged sitting is a health risk factor which is ubiquitous to the workplace, and breaking up prolonged sitting is widely recommended. This study evaluated the test–retest reliability and concurrent validity of a self-report measure of duration of sitting and breaks from sitting in the workplace. DesignCross-sectional study. MethodsFifty-nine workers who reported spending most of their work time sitting wore an activPAL inclinometer and the ActiGraph accelerometer for eight consecutive days, and completed single-item measures of duration of sitting (min/work hour) and breaks from sitting (frequency/per work hour), twice, seven days apart. ResultsParticipants reported sitting at work for a median of 420min/day (Interquartile Range=360–450min/day) and taking one break (Interquartile Range=1.0–2.0) from sitting per work hour. For reported duration of workplace sitting, test–retest reliability was adequate (Intra-Class Correlations=0.78, 95% Confidence Intervals [CI]=0.65, 0.86), and concurrent validity fair against the activPAL (Spearman’s Rho=0.24, CI-1.0,0.47) and the ActiGraph (Rho=0.39, CI=0.15, 0.68). For reported breaks from sitting (frequency/per work hour), test–retest reliability was adequate (Intra-Class Correlations=0.65, CI=0.48, 0.78) and concurrent validity fair against the activPAL (Spearman’s Rho=0.39, CI=0.25, 0.74) and the ActiGraph (Spearman’s Rho=0.30, CI=0.15, 0.69). Self-reported duration of sitting was biased toward over-reporting compared to the activPAL (median=45.4min) and under-reporting compared to the ActiGraph (median=21.7min). ConclusionsThis study found adequate reliability and fair validity for self-reported duration of sitting (min/work day) and breaks from sitting (frequency/per work hour). Further validity research is needed using the inclinometer.

Association between screen time and depression among US adults.

Epidemiological surveys conducted in general populations have found that the prevalence of depression is about 9% in the United States. World Health Organization has projected that depression will be leading cause of disease burden by the year 2030. Growing evidence suggests that sedentary lifestyle is an important risk factor of depression among adults. The relationship between television watching/computer use and depression in US adults is still unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between television watching/computer use and depression. This is a cross-sectional study that used the secondary data from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES) (2011/2012). Participants were 3201 US adults who were 20 years or more. Self-reported Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] was used to classify depression level; self-reported hours of watching TV and use of computer/day, and demographic information were obtained from NHANES data set. SAS®9.4was used to perform all statistical analyses and final model selection procedure. Depression was found to be significantly higher among female. Results showed that moderate or severe depression level was associated with higher time spent on TV watching and use of computer (> 6 h/day) (adjusted odds ratio: 2.3, 95% CI: 1.602–3.442). Duration of screen time was significantly associated when all covariates were adjusted. TV watching and computer use can predict the depression level among adults. Prospective studies and measurement of factors such as: work place sitting, social relationship, and family history of depression are warranted.

Reducing occupational sitting: Workers\u2019 perspectives on participation in a multi-component intervention

BackgroundOffice workers spend much of their time sitting, which is now understood to be a risk factor for several chronic diseases. This qualitative study examined participants’ perspectives following their involvement in a cluster randomised controlled trial of a multi-component intervention targeting prolonged workplace sitting (Stand Up Victoria). The intervention incorporated a sit-stand workstation, individual health coaching and organisational support strategies. The aim of the study was to explore the acceptability of the intervention, barriers and facilitators to reducing workplace sitting, and perceived effects of the intervention on workplace culture, productivity and health-related outcomes.MethodsSemi-structured interviews (n = 21 participants) and two focus groups (n = 7) were conducted with intervention participants at the conclusion of the 12 month trial and thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Questions covered intervention acceptability, overall impact, barriers and facilitators to reducing workplace sitting, and perceived impact on productivity and workplace culture.ResultsOverall, participants had positive intervention experiences, perceiving that reductions in workplace sitting were associated with improved health and well-being with limited negative impact on work performance. While sit-stand workstations appeared to be the primary drivers of change, workstation design and limited suitability of standing for some job tasks and situations were perceived as barriers to their use. Social support from team leaders and other participants was perceived to facilitate behavioural changes and a shift in norms towards increased acceptance of standing in the workplace.ConclusionsMulti-component interventions to reduce workplace sitting, incorporating sit-stand workstations, are acceptable and feasible; however, supportive social and environmental conditions are required to support participant engagement. Best practice approaches to reduce workplace sitting should address the multiple levels of influence on behaviour, including factors that may act as barriers to behavioural change.

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.

What are the working mechanisms of a web-based workplace sitting intervention targeting psychosocial factors and action planning?

BackgroundOffice workers demonstrate high levels of sitting on workdays. As sitting is positively associated with adverse health risks in adults, a theory-driven web-based computer-tailored intervention to influence workplace sitting, named ‘Start to Stand,’ was developed. The intervention was found to be effective in reducing self-reported workplace sitting among Flemish employees. The aim of this study was to investigate through which mechanisms the web-based computer-tailored intervention influenced self-reported workplace sitting.MethodsEmployees (n = 155) participated in a clustered randomised controlled trial and reported socio-demographics (age, gender, education), work-related (hours at work, employment duration), health-related (weight and height, workplace sitting and physical activity) and psychosocial (knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, social support, intention regarding (changing) sitting behaviours) variables at baseline and 1-month follow-up. The product-of-coefficients test of MacKinnon based on multiple linear regression analyses was conducted to examine the mediating role of five psychosocial factors (knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, social support, intention). The influence of one self-regulation skill (action planning) in the association between the intervention and self-reported workplace sitting time was investigated via moderation analyses.ResultsThe intervention had a positive influence on knowledge (p = 0.040), but none of the psychosocial variables did mediate the intervention effect on self-reported workplace sitting. Action planning was found to be a significant moderator (p < 0.001) as the decrease in self-reported workplace sitting only occurred in the group completing an action plan.ConclusionsFuture interventions aimed at reducing employees’ workplace sitting are suggested to focus on self-regulatory skills and promote action planning when using web-based computer-tailored advice.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02672215; (Archived by WebCite at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02672215).