Shuchi Agarwal1, Craig Steinmaus1,2, Carisa Harris-Adamson1,3. 1. a Department of Medicine , University of California at San Francisco , San Francisco , CA , USA. 2. b Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics , University of California Berkeley , Berkeley , CA , USA. 3. c Environmental Health Sciences , University of California Berkeley , Berkeley , CA , USA.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Francis Q S Dzakpasu; Alison Carver; Christian J Brakenridge; Flavia Cicuttini; Donna M Urquhart; Neville Owen; David W Dunstan Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2021-12-13 Impact factor: 6.457
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: Aaron R Caldwell; Kaitlin M Gallagher; Benjamin T Harris; Megan E Rosa-Caldwell; Marcus Payne; Bryce Daniels; Matthew S Ganio Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Lidewij R Renaud; Maaike A Huysmans; Hidde P van der Ploeg; Erwin M Speklé; Allard J van der Beek Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-08 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Charlotte L Brakenridge; Yee Ying Chong; Elisabeth A H Winkler; Nyssa T Hadgraft; Brianna S Fjeldsoe; Venerina Johnston; Leon M Straker; Genevieve N Healy; Bronwyn K Clark Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Charlotte L Edwardson; Tom Yates; Stuart J H Biddle; Melanie J Davies; David W Dunstan; Dale W Esliger; Laura J Gray; Benjamin Jackson; Sophie E O'Connell; Ghazala Waheed; Fehmidah Munir Journal: BMJ Date: 2018-10-10
Authors: Viktoria Wahlström; Anncristine Fjellman-Wiklund; Mette Harder; Lisbeth Slunga Järvholm; Therese Eskilsson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-12-18 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Stuart J H Biddle; Jason A Bennie; Katrien De Cocker; David Dunstan; Paul A Gardiner; Genevieve N Healy; Brigid Lynch; Neville Owen; Charlotte Brakenridge; Wendy Brown; Matthew Buman; Bronwyn Clark; Ing-Mari Dohrn; Mitch Duncan; Nicholas Gilson; Tracy Kolbe-Alexander; Toby Pavey; Natasha Reid; Corneel Vandelanotte; Ineke Vergeer; Grace E Vincent Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Beatriz Rodríguez-Romero; Michelle D Smith; Alejandro Quintela-Del-Rio; Venerina Johnston Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 3.390