Literature DB >> 30509536

The effects of sedentary behaviour interventions on work-related productivity and performance outcomes in real and simulated office work: A systematic review.

Wuyou Sui1, Siobhan T Smith2, Matthew J Fagan3, Scott Rollo4, Harry Prapavessis5.   

Abstract

This review examined the impact of environmental, behavioral, and combined interventions to reduce occupational sedentary behaviour on work performance and productivity outcomes. Productivity outcomes were defined as variables assessing work-related tasks (e.g., typing, mouse), whereas performance outcomes were categorized as any variables assessing cognition that did not mimic work-related tasks. Nine databases were searched for articles published up to January 2018. Sixty-three studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria: 45 examined a productivity outcome (i.e., typing, mouse, work-related tasks, and absenteeism), 38 examined a performance outcome (i.e., memory, reading comprehension, mathematics, executive function, creativity, psychomotor function, and psychobiological factors), and 30 examined a self-reported productivity/performance outcome (i.e., presenteeism or other self-reported outcome). Overall, standing interventions do not appear to impact productivity/performance outcomes, whereas walking and cycling interventions demonstrate mixed null/negative associations for productivity outcomes. Hence, standing interventions to reduce occupational sedentary behaviour could be implemented without negatively impacting productivity/performance outcomes.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Productivity; Sedentary behaviour; Work performance

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30509536     DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2018.09.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Ergon        ISSN: 0003-6870            Impact factor:   3.661


  5 in total

1.  The user and non-user perspective: Experiences of office workers with long-term access to sit-stand workstations.

Authors:  Lidewij R Renaud; Erwin M Speklé; Allard J van der Beek; Hidde P van der Ploeg; H Roeline Pasman; Maaike A Huysmans
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-07-28       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Feasibility and behavioral effects of prolonged static and dynamic standing as compared to sitting in older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Uros Marusic; Martijn L T M Müller; Neil B Alexander; Nicolaas I Bohnen
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 3.921

3.  Does treadmill workstation use affect user's kinematic gait symmetry?

Authors:  Paul Gonzalo Arauz; María-Gabriela García; Mauricio Velez; Cesar León; Francisco Velez; Bernard Martin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-12-14       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Natural Patterns of Sitting, Standing and Stepping During and Outside Work-Differences between Habitual Users and Non-Users of Sit-Stand Workstations.

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

5.  Cost and cost-effectiveness of the 'Stand and Move at Work' multicomponent intervention to reduce workplace sedentary time and cardiometabolic risk.

Authors:  Tzeyu L Michaud; Wen You; Paul A Estabrooks; Krista Leonard; Sarah A Rydell; Sarah L Mullane; Mark A Pereira; Matthew P Buman
Journal:  Scand J Work Environ Health       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 5.492

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.