BACKGROUND:Sitting time is a prevalent health risk among office-based workers. PURPOSE: To examine, using a pilot study, the efficacy of an intervention to reduce office workers' sitting time. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental design with intervention-group participants recruited from a single workplace that was physically separate from the workplaces of comparison-group participants. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Office workers (Intervention, n=18; Comparison, n=14) aged 20-65 years from Brisbane, Australia; data were collected and analyzed in 2011. INTERVENTION: Installation of a commercially available sit-stand workstation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes from baseline at 1-week and 3-month follow-up in time spent sitting, standing, and stepping at the workplace and during all waking time (activPAL3 activity monitor, 7-day observation). Fasting total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, and glucose levels were assessed at baseline and 3 months (Cholestech LDX Analyzer). Acceptability was assessed with a 5-point response scale (eight items). RESULTS: The intervention group (relative to the comparison group) reduced sitting time at 1-week follow-up by 143 minutes/day at the workplace (95% CI= -184, -102) and 97 minutes/day during all waking time (95% CI= -144, -50). These effects were maintained at 3 months (-137 minutes/day and -78 minutes/day, respectively). Sitting was almost exclusively replaced by standing, with minimal changes to stepping time. Relative to the comparison group, the intervention group increased HDL cholesterol by an average of 0.26 mmol/L (95% CI=0.10, 0.42). Other biomarker differences were not significant. There was strong acceptability and preference for using the workstations, though some design limitations were noted. CONCLUSIONS: This trial is the first with objective measurement and a comparison group to demonstrate that the introduction of a sit-stand workstation can substantially reduce office workers' sitting time both at the workplace and overall throughout the week.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Sitting time is a prevalent health risk among office-based workers. PURPOSE: To examine, using a pilot study, the efficacy of an intervention to reduce office workers' sitting time. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental design with intervention-group participants recruited from a single workplace that was physically separate from the workplaces of comparison-group participants. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Office workers (Intervention, n=18; Comparison, n=14) aged 20-65 years from Brisbane, Australia; data were collected and analyzed in 2011. INTERVENTION: Installation of a commercially available sit-stand workstation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes from baseline at 1-week and 3-month follow-up in time spent sitting, standing, and stepping at the workplace and during all waking time (activPAL3 activity monitor, 7-day observation). Fasting total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, and glucose levels were assessed at baseline and 3 months (Cholestech LDX Analyzer). Acceptability was assessed with a 5-point response scale (eight items). RESULTS: The intervention group (relative to the comparison group) reduced sitting time at 1-week follow-up by 143 minutes/day at the workplace (95% CI= -184, -102) and 97 minutes/day during all waking time (95% CI= -144, -50). These effects were maintained at 3 months (-137 minutes/day and -78 minutes/day, respectively). Sitting was almost exclusively replaced by standing, with minimal changes to stepping time. Relative to the comparison group, the intervention group increased HDL cholesterol by an average of 0.26 mmol/L (95% CI=0.10, 0.42). Other biomarker differences were not significant. There was strong acceptability and preference for using the workstations, though some design limitations were noted. CONCLUSIONS: This trial is the first with objective measurement and a comparison group to demonstrate that the introduction of a sit-stand workstation can substantially reduce office workers' sitting time both at the workplace and overall throughout the week.
Authors: Mary E Rosenberger; Janet E Fulton; Matthew P Buman; Richard P Troiano; Michael A Grandner; David M Buchner; William L Haskell Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Davy Vancampfort; Joseph Firth; Felipe B Schuch; Simon Rosenbaum; James Mugisha; Mats Hallgren; Michel Probst; Philip B Ward; Fiona Gaughran; Marc De Hert; André F Carvalho; Brendon Stubbs Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Anne Carolyn Grunseit; Josephine Yuk-Yin Chau; Hidde Pieter van der Ploeg; Adrian Bauman Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Sharon P Parry; Pieter Coenen; Nipun Shrestha; Peter B O'Sullivan; Christopher G Maher; Leon M Straker Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-11-17
Authors: Liza S Rovniak; LeAnn Denlinger; Ellen Duveneck; Christopher N Sciamanna; Lan Kong; Andris Freivalds; Chester A Ray Journal: J Sci Med Sport Date: 2013-08-08 Impact factor: 4.319