Danilo R Silva1, Cláudia S Minderico2, Fernando Pinto3, Paul J Collings4, Edilson S Cyrino5, Luís B Sardinha6. 1. Study and Research Group in Metabolism, Nutrition, and Exercise - GEPEMENE, Londrina State University, Brazil; Exercise and Health Laboratory, CIPER, Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal. 2. Exercise and Health Laboratory, CIPER, Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal. 3. Departament of Social Sciences, Eça de Queiros High School, Portugal. 4. Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom; University of York, Department of Health Sciences, United Kingdom. 5. Study and Research Group in Metabolism, Nutrition, and Exercise - GEPEMENE, Londrina State University, Brazil. 6. Exercise and Health Laboratory, CIPER, Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal. Electronic address: lsardinha@fmh.ulisboa.pt.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We investigated the impact of a standing desk intervention on daily objectively monitored sedentary behavior and physical activity in 6th grade school students. DESIGN: Cluster non-randomised controlled trial. METHOD: Two classes (intervention students: n=22 [aged 11.8±0.4years]; control students: n=27 [11.6±0.5years]) from a public school in Lisbon were selected. The intervention involved replacing traditional seated classroom desks for standing desks, for a total duration of 16 weeks, in addition to performing teacher training and holding education/motivation sessions with students and parents. Sedentary behavior (ActivPAL inclinometer) and physical activity (Actigraph GT3X+ accelerometer) were measured for seven days immediately before and after the intervention. RESULTS: There were no differences in baseline behaviors between intervention and control groups (p>0.05). At follow-up (16 weeks), it was observed that the intervention group had decreased time spent sitting (total week: -6.8% and at school: -13.0% relative to baseline) and increased standing (total week: 16.5% and at school: 31.0%) based on inclinometer values (p-value for interaction group*time <0.05). No significant differences in activity outcomes were observed outside school time (week or weekend) between groups. CONCLUSION: We conclude that a 16 week classroom standing desk intervention successfully reduced sitting time and increase standing time at school, with no observed compensatory effects outside of school time.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: We investigated the impact of a standing desk intervention on daily objectively monitored sedentary behavior and physical activity in 6th grade school students. DESIGN: Cluster non-randomised controlled trial. METHOD: Two classes (intervention students: n=22 [aged 11.8±0.4years]; control students: n=27 [11.6±0.5years]) from a public school in Lisbon were selected. The intervention involved replacing traditional seated classroom desks for standing desks, for a total duration of 16 weeks, in addition to performing teacher training and holding education/motivation sessions with students and parents. Sedentary behavior (ActivPAL inclinometer) and physical activity (Actigraph GT3X+ accelerometer) were measured for seven days immediately before and after the intervention. RESULTS: There were no differences in baseline behaviors between intervention and control groups (p>0.05). At follow-up (16 weeks), it was observed that the intervention group had decreased time spent sitting (total week: -6.8% and at school: -13.0% relative to baseline) and increased standing (total week: 16.5% and at school: 31.0%) based on inclinometer values (p-value for interaction group*time <0.05). No significant differences in activity outcomes were observed outside school time (week or weekend) between groups. CONCLUSION: We conclude that a 16 week classroom standing desk intervention successfully reduced sitting time and increase standing time at school, with no observed compensatory effects outside of school time.
Authors: Alexander L Wallace; Ann M Swartz; Chi C Cho; Christine M Kaiver; Ryan M Sullivan; Krista M Lisdahl Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-07 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Robert Glenn Weaver; Rafael M Tassitano; Maria Cecília M Tenório; Keith Brazendale; Michael W Beets Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2021-10-09
Authors: Bruno P Moura; Rogério L Rufino; Ricardo C Faria; Jeffer E Sasaki; Paulo Roberto S Amorim Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-08-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Sharon Parry; Beatriz Ir de Oliveira; Joanne A McVeigh; Joyln Ee; Angela Jacques; Leon Straker Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-09-25 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Nicole E Blackburn; Jason J Wilson; Ilona I McMullan; Paolo Caserotti; Maria Giné-Garriga; Katharina Wirth; Laura Coll-Planas; Sergi Blancafort Alias; Marta Roqué; Manuela Deidda; Andrew T Kunzmann; Dhayana Dallmeier; Mark A Tully Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2020-04-25 Impact factor: 6.457