Reducing occupational sedentary time: a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence on activity-permissive workstations

Validity and responsiveness of four measures of occupational sitting and standing

Background

Evidence on the detrimental health effects of prolonged sedentary behavior is accumulating. Interventions need to have a specific focus on sedentary behavior in order to generate clinically meaningful decreases in sedentary time. When evaluating such intervention, the question whether a participant improved or deteriorated their behavior is fundamental and instruments that are able to detect those changes are essential. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the criterion validity against activPAL and responsiveness to change of two activity monitors (ActiGraph and activPAL) and two questionnaires for the assessment of occupational sitting and standing time.

Methods

42 participants took part in the Stand@Work intervention trial. Six (T0) and two (T1) weeks before they received a sit-stand workstation and three weeks thereafter (T2), participants wore an ActiGraph and an activPAL activity monitor, and completed the Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire (OSPAQ) and the Workforce Sitting Questionnaire (WSQ). The activPAL was used as the criterion validity measure.

Results

The ActiGraph showed strong validity for occupational sedentary time at T0 and T1 (Spearman rho = 0.77 and 0.69), but its validity dropped substantially after introduction of the sit-stand workstation (rho = 0.19). Correlations between occupational light-intensity activity assessed by the ActiGraph and occupational standing time assessed by the activPAL varied between 0.25–0.63. The occupational sitting validity correlation of the OSPAQ and WSQ varied from 0.35-0.48 and 0.25-0.30, respectively, and between 0.16–0.68 for the OSPAQ for occupational standing time. The intervention-induced changes in occupational sitting and standing time were well detected by the activPAL, OSPAQ and WSQ (sitting only), but not by the ActiGraph, which had the lowest responsiveness to change.

Conclusions

This study suggests that studies aimed at determining differences in occupational sitting and standing time should use activPAL-type inclinometers as a preferred type of objective measure. Simple questionnaires showed sufficient validity and are usable in addition to an objective measure or alone when objective monitoring is not possible. The hip-worn ActiGraph was unable to distinguish between occupational sitting and standing time, when using uniaxial data and traditional cut-points for sedentary time and light-intensity activity.

Trial registration

The study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (No. ACTRN 12612000072819).

Standing, Obesity, and Metabolic Syndrome: Findings From the Cooper Center Longitudinal Study

OBJECTIVE

To examine the cross-sectional relationships between standing time, obesity, and metabolic syndrome alongside and independent of leisure-time physical activity (LTPA).

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

The primary study sample consisted of 7075 adult patients (aged 20-79 years) from Cooper Clinic (Dallas, Texas). In this cross-sectional study we assessed the associations between reported standing time and directly measured obesity (body mass index ≥ 30), elevated waist circumference (men: ≥ 102 cm; women: ≥ 88 cm), body fat percentage (men: ≥ 25%; women ≥ 30%), and metabolic syndrome (yes/no). In addition, the joint associations of standing and LTPA on each outcome were examined. Multivariable logistic regression adjusting for confounders was used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Standing a quarter of the time or more was significantly associated with reduced odds of an elevated body fat percentage in men (P < .001) and a reduced likelihood of obesity (P < .009) and abdominal obesity (P=.04) in women. In addition, joint association analyses indicated that compared with the reference group (ie, not meeting the physical activity guidelines/standing almost none of the time), men and women who met the physical activity guidelines had lower odds of all obesity outcomes and metabolic syndrome with incremental additions of standing time (ie, a dose-response relationship).

CONCLUSION

Standing a quarter of the time per day or more is associated with reduced odds of obesity. The inverse relationship of standing to obesity and metabolic syndrome is more robust when combined with health-promoting LTPA. Prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings and establish a causal relationship.

Theory-driven, web-based, computer-tailored advice to reduce and interrupt sitting at work: development, feasibility and acceptability testing among employees

Background

Because of the adverse health effects in adults, interventions to influence workplace sitting, a large contributor to overall daily sedentary time, are needed. Computer-tailored interventions have demonstrated good outcomes in other health behaviours, though few have targeted sitting time at work. Therefore, the present aims were to (1) describe the development of a theory-driven, web-based, computer-tailored advice to influence sitting at work, (2) report on the feasibility of reaching employees, and (3) report on the acceptability of the advice.

Methods

Employees from a public city service (n = 179) were invited by e-mail to participate. Employees interested to request the advice (n = 112) were sent the website link, a personal login and password. The online advice was based on different aspects of the Theory of Planned Behaviour, Self-Determination Theory and Self-Regulation Theory. Logistic regressions were conducted to compare characteristics (gender, age, education, employment status, amount of sitting and psychosocial correlates of workplace sitting) of employees requesting the advice (n = 90, 80.4 %) with those who did not. Two weeks after visiting the website, 47 employees (52.2 %) completed an online acceptability questionnaire.

Results

Those with a high education were more likely to request the advice than those with a low education (OR = 2.4, CI = 1.0-5.8), and those with a part-time job were more likely to request the advice compared to full-time employees (OR = 2.9, CI = 1.2-7.1). The majority found the advice interesting (n = 36/47, 76.6 %), relevant (n = 33/47, 70.2 %) and motivating (n = 29/47, 61.7 %). Fewer employees believed the advice was practicable (n = 15/47, 31.9 %). After completing the advice, 58.0 % (n = 25/43) reported to have started interrupting their sitting and 32.6 % (n = 17/43) additionally intended to do so; 14.0 % (n = 6/43) reported to have reduced their sitting and another 51.2 % (n = 22/43) intended to do so.

Discussion

More efforts are needed to reach lower educated and full-time workers. Further research should examinethe effects of this intervention in a rigorous randomised controlled trial.

Conclusions

It is feasible to reach employees with this tool. Most of the employees who requested the advice found itacceptable and reported they changed their behaviour or intended to change it. Interrupting sittingappeared more achievable than reducing workplace sitting.

Excessive sitting at work and at home: Correlates of occupational sitting and TV viewing time in working adults

Background

Recent evidence links sedentary behaviour (or too much sitting) with poorer health outcomes; many adults accumulate the majority of their daily sitting time through occupational sitting and TV viewing. To further the development and targeting of evidence-based strategies there is a need for identification of the factors associated with higher levels of these behaviours. This study examined socio-demographic and health-related correlates of occupational sitting and of combined high levels of occupational sitting/TV viewing time amongst working adults.

Methods

Participants were attendees of the third wave (2011/12) of the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle (AusDiab) study who worked full-time (≥35 h/week; n = 1,235; 38 % women; mean ± SD age 53 ± 7 years). Logistic and multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted (separately for women and men) to assess cross-sectional associations of self-reported occupational sitting time (categorised as high/low based on the median) and also the combination of occupational sitting time/TV viewing time (high/low for each outcome), with a number of potential socio-demographic and health-related correlates.

Results

Higher levels of occupational sitting (>6 h/day) were associated with higher household income for both genders. Lower levels of occupational sitting were associated with being older (women only); and, for men only, having a blue collar occupation, having a technical/vocational educational attainment, and undertaking more leisure-time physical activity (LTPA). Attributes associated with high levels of both occupational sitting and TV viewing time included white collar occupation (men only), lower levels of LTPA (both genders), higher BMI (men), and higher energy consumption (women).

Conclusions

Higher household income (both genders) and professional/managerial occupations (men only) were correlates of high occupational sitting time, relative to low occupational sitting time, while health-related factors (lower LTPA, higher BMI – men, and higher energy consumption – women) were associated with high levels of both occupational sitting and TV viewing time, relative to low occupational sitting and low TV viewing time. These findings suggest possible high-risk groups that may benefit from targeted interventions. Further research is needed on potentially modifiable environmental and social correlates of occupational sitting time, in order to inform workplace initiatives.

Acceptability of smartphone technology to interrupt sedentary time in adults with diabetes

Breaking up sitting time with light- or moderate-intensity physical activity may help to alleviate some negative health effects of sedentary behavior, but few studies have examined ways to effectively intervene. This feasibility study examined the acceptability of a new technology (NEAT!) developed to interrupt prolonged bouts (≥20 min) of sedentary time among adults with type 2 diabetes. Eight of nine participants completed a 1-month intervention and agreed that NEAT! made them more conscious of sitting time. Most participants (87.5 %) expressed a desire to use NEAT! in the future. Sedentary time decreased by 8.1 ± 4.5 %, and light physical activity increased by 7.9 ± 5.5 % over the 1-month period. The results suggest that NEAT! is an acceptable technology to intervene on sedentary time among adults with type 2 diabetes. Future studies are needed to examine the use of the technology among larger samples and determine its effects on glucose and insulin levels.

Neighborhood environmental attributes and adults' sedentary behaviors: Review and research agenda

OBJECTIVE

Physical activity recommendations are beginning to address sedentary behaviors - time spent sitting. Environmental and policy initiatives for physical activity might assist in addressing sedentary behaviors, but sedentary-specific innovations may be required. This review synthesizes current evidence on associations of neighborhood environmental attributes with adults' sedentary behaviors.

METHODS

A search was conducted using three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Transport Research Information Services). Relevant articles were assessed for their eligibility for inclusion (English-language articles with a quantitative examination of associations of neighborhood environmental attributes with adults' sedentary behaviors).

RESULTS

Within 17 studies meeting inclusion criteria, associations of environmental attributes with sedentary behaviors were examined in 89 instances. Significant associations were found in 28% (n=25) of them; however, non-significant associations were found in 56% (n=50) of these instances. The most consistent association was for lower levels of sedentary behavior among residents of urban compared to regional areas.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a modest but mixed initial evidence in associations of neighborhood environmental attributes with adults' sedentary behaviors. A research agenda required for this emerging field should include the development of more relevant conceptual models, measuring domain-specific sedentary behavior objectively, examining environments in close vicinity of and a larger area around home, and the use of prospective designs.

Is Sitting Too Much Bad for Your Health?

Office workers spend a large part of their workday sitting down. Too much sitting seems bad for people’s health and puts them at risk for premature death. Workstation alternatives that allow desk work to be done while standing, walking, biking, or stepping reduce the total time spent sitting without affecting work performance much. Moreover, these alternatives seem acceptable to users. Future research is needed to determine long-term effects and whether results apply to different working populations. Ergonomists play an important role in developing recommendations for the setup and use of alternative workstations and in improving their feasibility.

A Physiological Perspective on Treadmill and Sit-to-Stand Workstations

Active workstations, such as treadmill and sit-to-stand workstations, enable office employees to break prolonged sitting with bouts of light-intensity walking and/or standing. Compared with sitting, walking and/or standing accumulated during the workday using these workstations will increase muscle contractions, which may influence blood flow, energy expenditure, metabolism, musculoskeletal health, and brain function. Physiological responses when using treadmill and sit-to-stand workstations may vary due to differences in muscle contraction type (dynamic vs. static) and may thus affect cardio-metabolic and musculoskeletal health and brain function in different ways.

Temporal changes in occupational sitting time in the Danish workforce and associations with all-cause mortality: results from the Danish work environment cohort study

BACKGROUND

Prolonged sitting has been negatively associated with a range of non-communicably diseases. However, the role of occupational sitting is less clear, and little is known on the changes of occupational sitting in a working population over time. The present study aimed to determine 1) temporal changes in occupational sitting time between 1990 and 2010 in the Danish workforce; 2) the association and possible dose-response relationship between occupational sitting time and all-cause mortality.

METHODS

This study analysed data from the Danish Work Environment Cohort Study (DWECS), which is a cohort study of the Danish working population conducted in five yearly intervals between 1990 and 2010. Occupational sitting time is self-reported in the DWECS. To determine the association with all-cause mortality, the DWECS was linked to the Danish Register of Causes of Death via the Central Person Register.

RESULTS

Between 1990 and 2010 the proportion of the Danish workforce who sat for at least three quarters of their work time gradually increased from 33.1 to 39.1%. All-cause mortality analyses were performed with 149,773 person-years of observation and an average follow-up of 12.61 years, during which 533 deaths were registered. None of the presented analyses found a statistically significant association between occupational sitting time and all-cause mortality. The hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.79; 1.18) when ≥24 hr/wk occupational sitting time was compared to <24 hr/wk for the 1990-2005 waves.

CONCLUSIONS

Occupational sitting time increased by 18% in the Danish workforce, which seemed to be limited to people with high socio-economic status. If this increase is accompanied by increases in total sitting time, this development has serious public health implications, given the detrimental associations between total sitting time and mortality. The current study was inconclusive on the specific role that occupational sitting might play in the increased all-cause mortality risk associated with the total volume of sitting.

Addressing the social determinants of inequities in physical activity and sedentary behaviours

Participation in both physical activity and sedentary behaviours follow a social gradient, such that those who are more advantaged are more likely to be regularly physically active, less likely to be sedentary, and less likely to experience the adverse health outcomes associated with inactive lifestyles than their less advantaged peers. The aim of this paper is to provide, in a format that will support policymakers and practitioners, an overview of the current evidence base and highlight promising approaches for promoting physical activity and reducing sedentary behaviours equitably at each level of 'Fair Foundations: The VicHealth framework for health equity'. A rapid review was undertaken in February-April 2014. Electronic databases (Medline, PsychINFO, SportsDISCUS, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Global Health and Embase) were searched using a pre-defined search strategy and grey literature searches of websites of key relevant organizations were undertaken. The majority of included studies focussed on approaches targeting behaviour change at the individual level, with fewer focussing on daily living conditions or broader socioeconomic, political and cultural contexts. While many gaps in the evidence base remain, particularly in relation to reducing sedentary behaviour, promising approaches for promoting physical activity equitably across the three levels of the Fair Foundations framework include: community-wide approaches; support for local and state governments to develop policies and practices; neighbourhood designs (including parks) that are conducive to physical activity; investment in early childhood interventions; school programmes; peer- or group-based programmes; and targeted motivational, cognitive-behavioural, and/or mediated individual-level approaches.

The effect of a sit-stand workstation intervention on daily sitting, standing and physical activity: protocol for a 12 month workplace randomised control trial

BACKGROUND

A lack of physical activity and excessive sitting can contribute to poor physical health and wellbeing. The high percentage of the UK adult population in employment, and the prolonged sitting associated with desk-based office-work, make these workplaces an appropriate setting for interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour and increase physical activity. This pilot study aims to determine the effect of an office-based sit-stand workstation intervention, compared with usual desk use, on daily sitting, standing and physical activity, and to examine the factors that underlie sitting, standing and physical activity, within and outside, the workplace.

METHODS/DESIGN

A randomised control trial (RCT) comparing the effects of a sit-stand workstation only and a multi-component sit-stand workstation intervention, with usual desk-based working practice (no sit-stand workstation) will be conducted with office workers across two organisations, over a 12 month period (N = 30). The multicomponent intervention will comprise organisational, environmental and individual elements. Objective data will be collected at baseline, and after 2-weeks, 3-months, 6-months and 12-months of the intervention. Objective measures of sitting, standing, and physical activity will be made concurrently (ActivPAL3™ and ActiGraph (GT3X+)). Activity diaries, ethnographic participant observation, and interviews with participants and key organisational personnel will be used to elicit understanding of the influence of organisational culture on sitting, standing and physical activity behaviour in the workplace.

DISCUSSION

This study will be the first long-term sit-stand workstation intervention study utilising an RCT design, and incorporating a comprehensive process evaluation. The study will generate an understanding of the factors that encourage and restrict successful implementation of sit-stand workstation interventions, and will help inform future occupational wellbeing policy and practice. Other strengths include the objective measurement of physical activity during both work and non-work hours.

TRAIL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02172599, 22nd June 2014.

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work

BACKGROUND

The number of people working whilst seated at a desk keeps increasing worldwide. As sitting increases, occupational physical strain declines at the same time. This has contributed to increases in cardiovascular disease, obesity and diabetes. Therefore, reducing and breaking up the time that people spend sitting while at work is important for health.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of workplace interventions to reduce sitting at work compared to no intervention or alternative interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, OSH UPDATE, PsycINFO, Clinical trials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) search trial portal up to 14 February, 2014. We also searched reference lists of articles and contacted authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCTs), and quasi-randomised controlled trials of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) with a concurrent control group. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or objectively measured by means of an accelerometer coupled with an inclinometer. We considered energy expenditure, duration and number of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more, work productivity and adverse events as secondary outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional data where required.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies, four RCTs, three CBAs and one cRCT, with a total of 1125 participants. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (three studies), policy changes (one study) and information and counselling (four studies). No studies investigated the effect of treadmill desks, stepping devices, periodic breaks or standing or walking meetings. All the studies were at high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was very low to low. Half of the studies were from Australia and the other half from Europe, with none from low- or middle-income countries. Physical workplace changesWe found very low quality evidence that sit-stand desks with or without additional counselling reduced sitting time at work per workday at one week follow-up (MD -143 minutes (95% CI -184 to -102, one study, 31 participants) and at three months' follow-up (MD - 113 minutes, 95% CI -143 to -84, two studies, 61 participants) compared to no intervention. Total sitting time during the whole day decreased also with sit-stand desks compared to no intervention (MD -78 minutes, 95% CI -125 to -30, one study, 31 participants) as did the duration of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -52 minutes, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies, 74 participants). Sit-stand desks did not have a considerable effect on work performance and had an inconsistent effect on musculoskeletal symptoms and sick leave. Policy changesWalking strategies had no considerable effect on sitting at work (MD -16 minutes, 95% CI -54 to 23, one study, 179 participants, low quality evidence). Information and counsellingGuideline-based counselling by occupational physicians reduced sitting time at work (MD -28 minutes, 95% CI -54 to -2, one study, 396 participants, low quality evidence). There was no considerable effect on reduction in total sitting time during the whole day.Mindfulness training induced a non-significant reduction in workplace sitting time (MD -2 minutes, 95% CI -22 to 18) at six months' follow-up and at 12 months' follow-up (MD -16 minutes, 95% CI -45 to 12, one study, 257 participants, low quality evidence).There was an inconsistent effect of computer prompting on sitting time at work. One study found no considerable effect on sitting at work (MD -18 minutes, 95% CI -53 to 17, 28 participants, low quality evidence) at 10 days' follow-up, while another study reported a significant reduction in sitting at work (MD -55 minutes, 95% CI -96 to -14, 34 participants, low quality evidence) at 13 weeks' follow-up. Computer prompting software also led to a non-significant increase in energy expenditure at work (MD 278 calories/workday, 95% CI 0 to 556, one study, 34 participants, low quality evidence) at 13 weeks' follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present there is very low quality evidence that sit-stand desks can reduce sitting time at work, but the effects of policy changes and information and counselling are inconsistent. There is a need for high quality cluster-randomised trials to assess the effects of different types of interventions on objectively measured sitting time. There are many ongoing trials that might change these conclusions in the near future.

Socio-demographic, behavioural and cognitive correlates of work-related sitting time in German men and women

BACKGROUND

Sitting time is ubiquitous for most adults in developed countries and is most prevalent in three domains: in the workplace, during transport and during leisure time. The correlates of prolonged sitting time in workplace settings are not well understood. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the gender-specific associations between the socio-demographic, behavioural and cognitive correlates of work-related sitting time.

METHODS

A cross-sectional sample of working German adults (n = 1515; 747 men; 43.5 ± 11.0 years) completed questionnaires regarding domain-specific sitting times and physical activity (PA) and answered statements concerning beliefs about sitting. To identify gender-specific correlates of work-related sitting time, we used a series of linear regressions.

RESULTS

The overall median was 2 hours of work-related sitting time/day. Regression analyses showed for men (β = -.43) and for women (β = -.32) that work-related PA was negatively associated with work-related sitting time, but leisure-related PA was not a significant correlate. For women only, transport-related PA (β = -.07) was a negative correlate of work-related sitting time, suggesting increased sitting times during work with decreased PA in transport. Education and income levels were positively associated, and in women only, age (β = -.14) had a negative correlation with work-related sitting time. For both genders, TV-related sitting time was negatively associated with work-related sitting time. The only association with cognitive correlates was found in men for the belief 'Sitting for long periods does not matter to me' (β = .10) expressing a more positive attitude towards sitting with increasing sitting durations.

CONCLUSIONS

The present findings show that in particular, higher educated men and women as well as young women are high-risk groups to target for reducing prolonged work-related sitting time. In addition, our findings propose considering increasing transport-related PA, especially in women, as well as promoting recreation-related PA in conjunction with efforts to reduce long work-related sitting times.

Uptake and factors that influence the use of 'sit less, move more' occupational intervention strategies in Spanish office employees

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the types of 'sit less, move more' strategies that appeal to office employees, or what factors influence their use. This study assessed the uptake of strategies in Spanish university office employees engaged in an intervention, and those factors that enabled or limited strategy uptake.

METHODS

The study used a mixed method design. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with academics and administrators (n = 12; 44 ± 12 mean SD age; 6 women) at three points across the five-month intervention, and data used to identify factors that influenced the uptake of strategies. Employees who finished the intervention then completed a survey rating (n = 88; 42 ± 8 mean SD age; 51 women) the extent to which strategies were used [never (1) to usually (4)]; additional survey items (generated from interviewee data) rated the impact of factors that enabled or limited strategy uptake [no influence (1) to very strong influence (4)]. Survey score distributions and averages were calculated and findings triangulated with interview data.

RESULTS

Relative to baseline, 67% of the sample increased step counts post intervention (n = 59); 60% decreased occupational sitting (n = 53). 'Active work tasks' and 'increases in walking intensity' were the strategies most frequently used by employees (89% and 94% sometimes or usually utilised these strategies); 'walk-talk meetings' and 'lunchtime walking groups' were the least used (80% and 96% hardly ever or never utilised these strategies). 'Sitting time and step count logging' was the most important enabler of behaviour change (mean survey score of 3.1 ± 0.8); interviewees highlighted the motivational value of being able to view logged data through visual graphics in a dedicated website, and gain feedback on progress against set goals. 'Screen based work' (mean survey score of 3.2 ± 0.8) was the most significant barrier limiting the uptake of strategies. Inherent time pressures and cultural norms that dictated sedentary work practices limited the adoption of 'walk-talk meetings' and 'lunch time walking groups'.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings provide practical insights into which strategies and influences practitioners need to target to maximise the impact of 'sit less, move more' occupational intervention strategies.

The effectiveness of sit-stand workstations for changing office workers' sitting time: results from the Stand@Work randomized controlled trial pilot

Background

Prolonged sitting time is detrimental for health. Individuals with desk-based occupations tend to sit a great deal and sit-stand workstations have been identified as a potential strategy to reduce sitting time. Hence, the objective of the current study was to examine the effects of using sit-stand workstations on office workers’ sitting time at work and over the whole day.

Methods

We conducted a randomized controlled trial pilot with crossover design and waiting list control in Sydney, Australia from September 2011 to July 2012 (n = 42; 86% female; mean age 38 ± 11 years). Participants used a sit-stand workstation for four weeks in the intervention condition. In the time-matched control condition, participants received nothing and crossed over to the intervention condition after four weeks. The primary outcomes, sitting, standing and walking time at work, were assessed before and after using the workstations with ActivPALs and self-report questionnaires. Secondary outcomes, domain-specific sitting over the whole day, were assessed by self-report. Linear mixed models estimated changes in outcomes adjusting for measurement time, study grouping and covariates.

Results

Intervention participants significantly reduced objectively assessed time spent sitting at work by 73 min/workday (95% CI: −106,-39) and increased standing time at work by 65 min/workday (95% CI: 47, 83); these changes were significant relative to controls (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively). Total sitting time significantly declined in intervention participants (−80 min/workday; 95% CI: −155, −4).

Conclusions

This study shows that introducing sit-stand workstations in the office can reduce desk-based workers’ sitting time at work in the short term. Larger scale studies on more representative samples are needed to determine the public health impact of sit-stand workstations.

Trial registration

ACTRN12612000072819

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12966-014-0127-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.