Computer-based Prompt's impact on postural variability and sit-stand desk usage behavior; a cluster randomized control trial

Mixed-methods process evaluation of the Dynamic Work study: A multicomponent intervention for office workers to reduce sitting time

Previously, we observed no significant reductions in sitting time of the multicomponent Dynamic Work (DW) intervention among office workers. In this study we used mixed-method data to understand context, implementation (i.e. recruitment and delivery) and mechanism of impact (i.e. experiences) of the DW intervention and to explore whether an higher implementation index score led to larger changes in participants' outcomes. We found considerable variation across departments regarding context (i.e. different size and work tasks) and implementation (i.e. delivery varied). Satisfaction with the DW intervention was high. An higher implementation index score was associated with lower overall sitting time, lower occupational sitting time, higher number of steps/day and steps/day at work at 4-months, which was maintained at 8-month for occupational sitting time. These findings provide an understanding that implementation was affected by a lack of availability of intervention components, department policy, work tasks, positioning and work location. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, registration number:NCT03115645. Registered February 17, 2017 - Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03115645.

Schedules of standing and sitting directed by musculoskeletal discomfort in workers transitioning to sit-stand workstations: a cross-sectional study

Sit-stand workstations are growing in popularity, however limited guidelines exist regarding optimal schedules of sitting and standing. This was the first known study to observe sit-stand workstation schedules when postural change is based on maintaining musculoskeletal discomfort within 'acceptable' levels. Fourteen healthy adults new to sit-stand workstations completed computer-based work at a sit-stand desk for half a workday. Participants changed between standing and sitting postures each time discomfort reached the maximum acceptable threshold. On average, the amount of standing and sitting was greatest in the first standing (median 40 minutes, interquartile range 40 minutes) and sitting (median 30 minutes, interquartile range 115 minutes) bouts. Average durations spent standing and sitting were lower in all consecutive bouts. Stand-sit ratios indicated an equal amount of standing to sitting or somewhat less standing. The schedules had substantial inter-participant variability. Future studies should consider that optimal schedules may vary with regard to time and be individual-specific.

Impact of workplace displacement during a natural disaster on computer performance metrics: A 2-year interrupted time series analysis

BACKGROUND:

Remote working may enhance company resiliency during natural disasters and other events causing workplace displacement.

OBJECTIVE:

We conducted an interrupted time series analysis to investigate the impact of Hurricane Harvey on employee computer use during and after a seven-month displacement period from the physical workplace.

METHODS:

Ergonomic software was used to collect information on employees’ computer usage.

RESULTS:

Although there was no change in total computer use in response to the hurricane (β 0.25), active computer use significantly declined (β –0.90). All measured computer use behaviors returned to baseline prior to the complete return to the physical workspace.

CONCLUSION:

Despite a transient period of reduced activity during closure of the workplace building, productivity returned to normal prior to the employees’ return to a commercial workspace. The ability to work remotely may improve resiliency of employees to perform workplace tasks during events causing workplace displacement.

Computer Prompt Software to Reduce Sedentary Behavior and Promote Physical Activity Among Desk-Based Workers: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Do computer prompt software programs at the workplace reduce sitting time and/or increase physical activity at work?

BACKGROUND

Many products are promoted and being used in the workplace; however, their effectiveness and use are unknown or the evidence base that they work to change behavior is lacking.

METHOD

We searched for relevant papers published between 2005 and 2020. The inclusion criteria were computer prompt software programs installed as behavioral change interventions; interventions implemented during work hours and delivered through a work personal computer or laptop; and measures of sedentary behavior and/or physical activity. To minimize risk of bias, three recommended best-evidence synthesis criteria were used: random assignment, sample size, and external validity. Based on these criteria, articles were selected and evaluated.

RESULTS

Six publications met the quality threshold for review. Seven articles did not meet the quality threshold. Four of the six included publications found that computer prompt software programs decreased sedentary behavior and/or increased physical activity. Two publications reported inconsistent results.

CONCLUSIONS

The promising results from this systematic review indicate that there is potential for computer prompt software programs to improve the health of desk-based workers. For conclusive findings, more high-quality, scientific studies are needed.

APPLICATION

The best-evidence publications in this review can serve as a guide in selecting and implementing computer prompt software programs at the workplace to decrease sedentary behavior and increase physical activity.

Usage of sit-stand workstations: Benefits and barriers from decision makers' perspective in Australia

The aim of this cross-sectional mixed-method study was to understand the current use, and practices to support the implementation, of sit-stand workstations (SSWs) from the perspective of furniture purchasing decision makers in Australian organisations. An online survey, and in-depth interviews with a purposive sub-sample were conducted. A total of 216 eligible participants from 150 organisations across 18 sectors completed the survey with 17 interviews conducted. 40% of organisations provided SSWs on request while 41% reported not using them appropriately. Over half provided no training on the appropriate use of SSWs (n = 109, 51%) nor used any strategies to enhance their use (n = 163, 84%). From the interviews, SSWs were perceived effective in reducing discomforts and increasing employees' satisfaction and productivity. Lack of resources and guidelines to support SSW usage, and lack of wellbeing knowledge, were identified as barriers. Education and ongoing monitoring are important to enhance the appropriate use and uptake of SSWs.

College Classroom Instructors Can Effectively Promote Standing among Students Provided with Standing Desks

Standing desks may reduce sedentary behaviors in college students. Students at one mid-size urban university in the Midwestern United States were randomized into intervention (n = 21) and control groups (n = 27) to assess standing time when given access to standing desks. The intervention group received visual and oral instructor prompts to stand, while the control received no prompts during a 50 min lecture. All students were provided with adjustable tabletop standing desks. ActivPAL accelerometers measured sitting and standing time. A brief survey assessed student preferences, including facilitators and barriers to standing. Mean standing time was greater in the intervention vs. control group (26 vs. 17 min, p = 0.023). Students tended to stand in the corners and edges of the room. Main facilitators for standing included to break up sitting, reduce back pain, and increase attention and focus; main barriers were not wanting to distract others or be the only one standing. In total, 87.5% of intervention group participants found five prompts to stand were adequate. Students increased standing time in class when provided with standing desks and instructor prompts to stand. Findings can inform the layout of classrooms and when and how to promote standing desks during lectures.

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

OBJECTIVE

Sit-stand workstations have been shown to be effective in reducing sitting time in office workers. The aim of this study was to explore reasons for use and non-use of sit-stand workstations and strategies to decrease sitting and increase physical activity in the workplace from perspectives of users and non-users, as well as from managers and ergo-coaches.

METHODS

Six group interviews with employees who have had access to sit-stand workstations for several years were conducted in a large semi-governmental organisation in the Netherlands. Verbatim transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Open coding was conducted by three researchers and codes and themes were discussed within the research team.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis resulted in two major themes: 1) Reasons for use and non-use and 2) Strategies to increase standing and physical activity in the workplace. Shared and distinct reasons for use and non-use were identified between users and non-users of the sit-stand workstations. The most important reasons for use indicated by users were that they had experiencing immediate benefits, including staying alert and increasing focus; these benefits were not acknowledged by non-users. Non-users indicated that sitting was comfortable for them and that they were therefore not motivated to use the standing option. Strategies to increase the use of the standing option included an introductory phase to become familiar with working while standing and to experience the immediate benefits that come from using the standing option. Furthermore, providing reminders to use the standing option was suggested as a strategy to increase and sustain the use of sit-stand workstations. Increased use may lead to a change in the sitting culture within the organisation, as more employees would adopt active movement behaviours.

CONCLUSION

Immediate benefits of the use of the standing option-only mentioned by the users-was the most distinct reason to use sit-stand workstations. Future research should explore how to motivate potential users to adhere to an introductory phase in order to experience these immediate benefits, whether it is linked to the use of sit-stand workstations or other interventions to reduce sitting time.

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

Sit-stand workstations have shown to reduce sitting time in office workers on a group level. However, movement behaviour patterns might differ between subgroups of workers. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine sitting, standing and stepping outcomes between habitual users and non-users of sit-stand workstations. From an international office population based in the Netherlands, 24 users and 25 non-users of sit-stand workstations were included (all had long-term access to these workstations). Using the ActivPAL, sitting, standing and stepping were objectively measured during and outside working hours. Differences in outcomes between users and non-users were analysed using linear regression. During working hours, users sat less (-1.64; 95% IC= -2.27--1.01 hour/8 hour workday) and stood more (1.51; 95% IC= 0.92-2.10 hour/8 hour workday) than non-users. Attenuated but similar differences were also found for total sitting time over the whole week. Furthermore, time in static standing bouts was relatively high for users during working hours (median= 0.56; IQR = 0.19-1.08 hour/8 hour workday). During non-working hours on workdays and during non-working days, no differences were found between users and non-users. During working hours, habitual users of their sit-stand workstation sat substantially less and stood proportionally more than non-users. No differences were observed outside working hours, leading to attenuated but similar differences in total sitting and standing time between users and non-users for total days. This indicated that the users of sit-stand workstations reduced their sitting time at work, but this seemed not to be accompanied by major carry-over or compensatory effects outside working hours.

Effectiveness of the multi-component dynamic work intervention to reduce sitting time in office workers - Results from a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Prolonged sitting, which is highly prevalent in office workers, has been associated with several health risks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the Dynamic Work intervention by determining its effect on total sitting time at the 8-month follow-up in comparison to the control.

METHODS

This two-arm pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial included 244 office workers from 14 different departments of a large, Dutch insurance company. The Dynamic Work intervention was a real-life, worksite intervention that included environmental components (i.e. sit-stand workstations), organisational components (i.e. group sessions), and individual components (e.g. activity/sitting trackers). Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 4-month follow-up, and 8-month follow-up. The primary outcome was total sitting time per day, objectively assessed using the activPAL activity monitor at 8-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included other total and occupational movement behaviour outcomes, health-related outcomes, and work-related outcomes. Data analyses were performed using linear and logistic mixed models.

RESULTS

Total sitting time did not differ between the intervention and control group at the 8-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes also showed no difference between the intervention and control group at either the 4-month or at 8-month follow-up, with the exception of number of occupational steps, which showed a statistically significant effect at 4-month follow-up (but not at 8-month follow-up) of 913 (95% CI = 381-1445) steps/8-h working day.

CONCLUSIONS

This study evaluated the effectiveness of a real-life worksite intervention to reduce sitting time and showed little to no effect. This may be due to the relatively low intensity of the intervention, i.e. that it only involved the replacement of 25% of sitting workstations with sit-stand workstations. Future research should focus on the evaluation of more intensive real-life worksite interventions that are still feasible for implementation in daily practice. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV, REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03115645.