Stacy A Clemes1, Sally E Barber2, Daniel D Bingham3, Nicola D Ridgers4, Elly Fletcher4, Natalie Pearson5, Jo Salmon4, David W Dunstan6. 1. School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK NIHR Leicester-Loughborough Diet, Lifestyle and Physical Activity, Biomedical Research Unit, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK. 2. Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals Foundation Trust, Bradford BD9 6RJ, UK. 3. School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals Foundation Trust, Bradford BD9 6RJ, UK. 4. Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research (C-PAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Melbourne 3125, Australia. 5. School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK. 6. Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research (C-PAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Melbourne 3125, Australia Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne 3004, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This research examined the influence of sit-to-stand desks on classroom sitting time in primary school children. METHODS: Pilot controlled trials with similar intervention strategies were conducted in primary schools in Melbourne, Australia, and Bradford, UK. Sit-to-stand desks replaced all standard desks in the Australian intervention classroom. Six sit-to-stand desks replaced a bank of standard desks in the UK intervention classroom. Children were exposed to the sit-to-stand desks for 9-10 weeks. Control classrooms retained their normal seated desks. Classroom sitting time was measured at baseline and follow-up using the activPAL3 inclinometer. RESULTS: Thirty UK and 44 Australian children provided valid activPAL data at baseline and follow-up. The proportion of time spent sitting in class decreased significantly at follow-up in both intervention groups (UK: -9.8 ± 16.5% [-52.4 ± 66.6 min/day]; Australian: -9.4 ± 10% [-43.7 ± 29.9 min/day]). No significant changes in classroom sitting time were observed in the UK control group, while a significant reduction was observed in the Australian control group (-5.9 ± 11.7% [-28.2 ± 28.3 min/day]). CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of implementation, incorporating sit-to-stand desks into classrooms appears to be an effective way of reducing classroom sitting in this diverse sample of children. Longer term efficacy trials are needed to determine effects on children's health and learning.
BACKGROUND: This research examined the influence of sit-to-stand desks on classroom sitting time in primary school children. METHODS: Pilot controlled trials with similar intervention strategies were conducted in primary schools in Melbourne, Australia, and Bradford, UK. Sit-to-stand desks replaced all standard desks in the Australian intervention classroom. Six sit-to-stand desks replaced a bank of standard desks in the UK intervention classroom. Children were exposed to the sit-to-stand desks for 9-10 weeks. Control classrooms retained their normal seated desks. Classroom sitting time was measured at baseline and follow-up using the activPAL3 inclinometer. RESULTS: Thirty UK and 44 Australian children provided valid activPAL data at baseline and follow-up. The proportion of time spent sitting in class decreased significantly at follow-up in both intervention groups (UK: -9.8 ± 16.5% [-52.4 ± 66.6 min/day]; Australian: -9.4 ± 10% [-43.7 ± 29.9 min/day]). No significant changes in classroom sitting time were observed in the UK control group, while a significant reduction was observed in the Australian control group (-5.9 ± 11.7% [-28.2 ± 28.3 min/day]). CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of implementation, incorporating sit-to-stand desks into classrooms appears to be an effective way of reducing classroom sitting in this diverse sample of children. Longer term efficacy trials are needed to determine effects on children's health and learning.
Authors: Gwyneth Davies; John J Reilly; Amy J McGowan; Philippa M Dall; Malcolm H Granat; James Y Paton Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Andrew J Atkin; Trish Gorely; Stacy A Clemes; Thomas Yates; Charlotte Edwardson; Soren Brage; Jo Salmon; Simon J Marshall; Stuart J H Biddle Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Mark E Benden; Hongwei Zhao; Christina E Jeffrey; Monica L Wendel; Jamilia J Blake Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2014-09-10 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Erica Hinckson; Jo Salmon; Mark Benden; Stacey A Clemes; Bronwyn Sudholz; Sally E Barber; Saeideh Aminian; Nicola D Ridgers Journal: Sports Med Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Karl E Minges; Ariana M Chao; Melinda L Irwin; Neville Owen; Chorong Park; Robin Whittemore; Jo Salmon Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-01-22 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Roberto M Benzo; Allene L Gremaud; Matthew Jerome; Lucas J Carr Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-08-15 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Ash C Routen; Stuart J H Biddle; Danielle H Bodicoat; Lorraine Cale; Stacy Clemes; Charlotte L Edwardson; Cris Glazebrook; Deirdre M Harrington; Kamlesh Khunti; Natalie Pearson; Jo Salmon; Lauren B Sherar Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Ana María Contardo Ayala; Jo Salmon; Anna Timperio; Bronwyn Sudholz; Nicola D Ridgers; Parneet Sethi; David W Dunstan Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-12-10 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Bronwyn Sudholz; Anna Timperio; Nicola D Ridgers; David W Dunstan; Rick Baldock; Bernie Holland; Jo Salmon Journal: AIMS Public Health Date: 2016-05-11