Validity and responsiveness of four measures of occupational sitting and standing

Responsiveness of Patient-Reported and Device-Based Physical Activity Measures: Secondary Analysis of Four Randomized Trials

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the responsiveness of patient-reported and device-based instruments within four physical activity trials.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of four randomized trials that used both a patient-reported outcome measure (the Incidental and Planned Exercise Questionnaire (IPEQ)) and a device-based instrument (ActiGraph or ActivPAL) to measure physical activity. The four trials included were (i) Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT), digitally enabled exercises in those undertaking aged care and neurological rehabilitation; (ii) Balance Exercise Strength Training at Home, home-based balance and strength exercises in community-dwelling people 65 yr or older; (iii) Coaching for Healthy Ageing (CHAnGE), physical activity coaching and fall prevention intervention in community-dwelling people 60 yr or older; and (iv) Fitbit trial, fall prevention and physical activity promotion with health coaching and activity monitor in community-dwelling people 60 yr or older. We estimated treatment effects for all variables within each physical activity instrument using regression analyses and expressed results as effect sizes (ES).

RESULTS

Overall, device-based instruments were more responsive among healthy older adults (ES range, 0.01 to 0.32), whereas the IPEQ was more responsive among adults requiring rehabilitation (ES range, -0.06 to 0.35). Both the IPEQ and device-based instruments were more responsive in trials that promoted walking via coaching participants to increase their daily steps (AMOUNT (ES range, -0.06 to 0.35), CHAnGE (ES range, -0.24 to 0.22), and Fitbit trial (ES range, -0.23 to 0.32)). Individual variables within the IPEQ and device-based instruments varied in their responsiveness (ES range, -0.13 to 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

Both the IPEQ and device-based instruments are able to detect small changes in physical activity levels. However, responsiveness varies across different interventions and populations. Our findings provide guidance for researchers and clinicians in selecting an appropriate instrument to measure changes in physical activity.

Improving wheelchair user sitting posture to alleviate lumbar fatigue: a study utilizing sEMG and pressure sensors

Background

The wheelchair is a widely used rehabilitation device, which is indispensable for people with limited mobility. In the process of using a wheelchair, they often face the situation of sitting for a long time, which is easy to cause fatigue of the waist muscles of the user. Therefore, this paper hopes to provide more scientific guidance and suggestions for the daily use of wheelchairs by studying the relationship between the development of muscle fatigue and sitting posture.

Methods

First, we collected surface Electromyography (sEMG) of human vertical spine muscle and analyzed it in the frequency domain. The obtained Mean Power Frequency (MPF) was used as the dependent variable. Then, the pose information of the human body, including the percentage of pressure points, span, and center of mass as independent variables, was collected by the array of thin film pressure sensors, and analyzed by a multivariate nonlinear regression model.

Results

When the centroid row coordinate of the cushion pressure point is about 16(range, 7.7-16.9), the cushion pressure area percentage is about 80%(range, 70.8%-89.7%), and the cushion pressure span range is about 27(range, 25-31), the backrest pressure point centroid row coordinate is about 15(range, 9.1-18.2), the backrest pressure area percentage is about 35%(range, 11.8%-38.7%), and the backrest pressure span range is about 16(range, 9-22). At this time, the MPF value of the subjects decreased by a small percentage, and the fatigue development of the muscles was slower. In addition, the pressure area percentage at the seat cushion is a more sensitive independent variable, too large or too small pressure area percentage will easily cause lumbar muscle fatigue.

Conclusion

The results show that people should sit in the middle and back of the seat cushion when riding the wheelchair, so that the Angle of the hip joint can be in a natural state, and the thigh should fully contact the seat cushion to avoid the weight of the body concentrated on the buttocks; The back should be fully in contact with the back of the wheelchair to reduce the burden on the waist, and the spine posture can be adjusted appropriately according to personal habits, but it is necessary to avoid maintaining a chest sitting position for a long time, which will cause the lumbar spine to be in an unnatural physiological Angle and easily lead to fatigue of the waist muscles.

Use of the activPAL® triaxial accelerometer to estimate total energy expenditure in low-income women: differences between body mass index classifications

Objective

This study aimed to assess the agreement between the total energy expenditure (TEE) estimated by the activPAL® triaxial accelerometers (ACC) and the TEE measured by the doubly labeled water method (DLW), as well as to assess if these values differ between the classifications of body mass index (BMI).

Materials and methods

This is a cross-sectional study. Low-income adult women (19-45y) with BMI ≥ 18.5 kg/m2 were included. Accelerometry data (activPAL® ) were collected over 7 consecutive days, which were used to calculate TEE-ACC and compared with DLW data. The Bland-Altman method, concordance correlation coefficient and root mean square error were used to assess agreement between methods.

Results

The sample consisted of 55 women with a mean age of 31 ± 5 years. The agreement between TEE-ACC and TEE-DLW showed a bias of -142.5 kcal (-7.1%). Among the BMI classifications, participants with normal weight show a bias of -417.1 kcal (-21.0%), participants with overweight, -87.5 kcal (-3.9%) and participants with obesity, 97.5 kcal (4.3%). Furthermore, the bias between the methods showed a significant and positive correlation with the body weight (r = 0.49; p < 0.01).

Conclusion

The TEE-ACC estimates from activPAL® were reasonably accurate when compared to the TEE-DLW, especially in women with overweight and obesity, being much less accurate in individuals with normal weight.

Feasibility of a theory-based intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour among contact centre staff: the SUH stepped-wedge cluster RCT

Background

Sedentary behaviour is linked to increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal issues and poor mental well-being. Contact (call) centres are associated with higher levels of sedentary behaviour than other office-based workplaces. Stand Up for Health is an adaptive intervention designed to reduce sedentary behaviour in contact centres.

Objectives

The objectives were to test the acceptability and feasibility of implementing the intervention; to assess the feasibility of the study design and methods; to scope the feasibility of a future health economic evaluation; and to consider the impact of COVID-19 on the intervention. All sites received no intervention for between 3 and 12 months after the start of the study, as a waiting list control.

Design

This was a cluster-randomised stepped-wedge feasibility design.

Setting

The trial was set in 11 contact centres across the UK.

Participants

Eleven contact centres and staff.

Intervention

Stand Up for Health involved two workshops with staff in which staff developed activities for their context and culture. Activities ranged from using standing desks to individual goal-setting, group walks and changes to workplace policies and procedures.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was accelerometer-measured sedentary time. The secondary outcomes were subjectively measured sedentary time, overall sedentary behaviour, physical activity, productivity, mental well-being and musculoskeletal health.

Results

Stand Up for Health was implemented in 7 out of 11 centres and was acceptable, feasible and sustainable (objective 1). The COVID-19 pandemic affected the delivery of the intervention, involvement of contact centres, data collection and analysis. Organisational factors were deemed most important to the success of Stand Up for Health but also the most challenging to change. There were also difficulties with the stepped-wedge design, specifically maintaining contact centre interest (objective 2). Feasible methods for estimating cost-efficiency from an NHS and a Personal Social Services perspective were identified, assuming that alternative feasible effectiveness methodology can be applied. Detailed activity-based costing of direct intervention costs was achieved and, therefore, deemed feasible (objective 3). There was significantly more sedentary time spent in the workplace by the centres that received the intervention than those that did not (mean difference 84.06 minutes, 95% confidence interval 4.07 to 164.1 minutes). The other objective outcomes also tended to favour the control group.

Limitations

There were significant issues with the stepped-wedge design, including difficulties in maintaining centre interest and scheduling data collection. Collection of accelerometer data was not feasible during the pandemic.

Conclusions

Stand Up for Health is an adaptive, feasible and sustainable intervention. However, the stepped-wedge study design was not feasible. The effectiveness of Stand Up for Health was not demonstrated and clinically important reductions in sedentary behaviour may not be seen in a larger study. However, it may still be worthwhile conducting an effectiveness study of Stand Up for Health incorporating activities more relevant to hybrid workplaces.

Future work

Future work could include developing hybrid (office and/or home working) activities for Stand Up for Health; undertaking a larger effectiveness study and follow-up economic analysis (subject to its success); and exploring organisational features of contact centres that affect the implementation of interventions such as Stand Up for Health.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN11580369.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 10, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Association between sitting/lying down, standing, walking time and number of steps per day with the hormonal profile and resting energy expenditure of women with obesity living in a low-income region

Reducing sedentary behaviour (SB) and increasing physical activity (PA) by sitting less and standing/walking more is advised to prevent chronic diseases. However, the mechanisms underlying this recommendation are not well established, especially in individuals with obesity living in low-income regions. The present study evaluated whether there are associations between PA indicators (PAI - standing time, walking time and the number of steps/d) and SB indicators (SBI - sitting/lying down time) with the hormonal profile and resting energy expenditure (REE) of adult women living in a low-income region. This is a cross-sectional study. We collected data on hormones (insulin resistance, leptin and thyroid axis), body composition (tetrapolar bioimpedance), REE (indirect calorimetry), and PAI and SBI (triaxial accelerometers, ActivPAL). Multivariable linear models adjusting for age and fat-free mass were performed. Fifty-eight women (mean age of 31 years and BMI of 33 kg/m²) were included. The mean sitting/lying down time and standing time were 16·08 and 5·52 h/d, respectively. Sitting/lying down time showed a direct association with free thyroxine (FT₄) (β = 0·56 ng/dl; 95 % CI = -1·10, -0·02). Standing time showed a direct association with FT₄ (β = 0·75 ng/dl; 95 % CI = 0·01; 1·48) and inverse association with free triiodothyronine (β = -2·83 pg/ml 95 % CI = -5·56, -0·10). There were no associations between PAI and SBI with the REE, insulin resistance, leptin and thyroid-stimulating hormone. Thus, decreased SB is associated with thyroid hormones levels but not with REE, insulin resistance or leptin in women with obesity living in low-income regions.

A-REST (Activity to Reduce Excessive Sitting Time): A Feasibility Trial to Reduce Prolonged Sitting in Police Staff

The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of a theory-derived sedentary workplace intervention for police office staff. Twenty-four staff participated in an 8-week intervention (single arm, pre-post design) incorporating an education session, team competition with quick response (QR) codes, team trophy, weekly leaderboard newsletters, a self-monitoring phone app, and electronic prompt tools. The intervention supported participants to reduce and break up their sitting time with three minutes of incidental movement every 30 min at work. Feasibility and acceptability were assessed using mixed methods via the RE-AIM QuEST and PRECIS-2 frameworks. The intervention was highly pragmatic in terms of eligibility, organisation, adherence, outcome, and analysis. It was slightly less pragmatic on recruitment and setting. Delivery and follow-up were more explanatory. Reach and adoption indicators demonstrated feasibility among police staff, across a range of departments, who were demographically similar to participants in previous office-based multi-component interventions. The intervention was delivered mostly as planned with minor deviations from protocol (implementation fidelity). Participants perceived the intervention components as highly acceptable. Results showed improvements in workplace sitting and standing, as well as small improvements in weight and positive affect. Evaluation of the intervention in a fully powered randomised controlled trial to assess behaviour and health outcomes is recommended.

The relationship between total energy expenditure and physical activity level in women living in an impoverished Brazilian urban area

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe how strong is the relationship between TEE and PAL in women living in an impoverished Brazilian urban area.

METHODS

Anthropometric, hormonal (insulin, TSH, FT₄ , and FT₃ ), body composition (deuterium), TEE (doubly labeled water) and PAL (metabolic equivalent task [MET]-7-day triaxial accelerometer, ActivPAL®) data were collected from 55 women (mean age: 31y, mean BMI: 27.4 kg/m² ). Adjusted-TEE models were calculated incorporating the residuals of anthropometric, hormonal, and body composition variables in the TEE, to assess the relation between MET and adjusted-TEE, through three different analyzes: linear regression, nonlinear regression and change-point regression.

RESULTS

Most participants (89.1%, n = 49) were classified as low-active. There was no association between crude TEE and MET.h/d (R²  = 0.05; p = 0.09). There was a positive, although weak, linear relationship between adjusted-TEE and MET.h/d (β = 2705.26 kcal; 95% CI: 436.25; 4974.27; adj-R²  = 0.08). A change point of this relationship was identified in the MET.h/d value of 1.53 (SD = 0.02; adj-R² = 0.13). The association between adjusted-TEE and MET.h/d before the change point (β = 5101.46 kcal; 95%CI: 978.84; 9224.08; adj-R²  = 0.11) was stronger than the association in the full linear model, nevertheless, it was still weak. This association stop existing when it is assessed in individuals after the change point (β = -6609.92 kcal; 95%CI: -16773.24; 3553.40; adj-R²  = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the relationship between TEE and PAL is weak and it is not completely linear in women living in an impoverished Brazilian urban area.

Quality Evaluation of Free-living Validation Studies for the Assessment of 24-Hour Physical Behavior in Adults via Wearables: Systematic Review

Background

Wearable technology is a leading fitness trend in the growing commercial industry and an established method for collecting 24-hour physical behavior data in research studies. High-quality free-living validation studies are required to enable both researchers and consumers to make guided decisions on which study to rely on and which device to use. However, reviews focusing on the quality of free-living validation studies in adults are lacking.

Objective

This study aimed to raise researchers’ and consumers’ attention to the quality of published validation protocols while aiming to identify and compare specific consistencies or inconsistencies between protocols. We aimed to provide a comprehensive and historical overview of which wearable devices have been validated for which purpose and whether they show promise for use in further studies.

Methods

Peer-reviewed validation studies from electronic databases, as well as backward and forward citation searches (1970 to July 2021), with the following, required indicators were included: protocol must include real-life conditions, outcome must belong to one dimension of the 24-hour physical behavior construct (intensity, posture or activity type, and biological state), the protocol must include a criterion measure, and study results must be published in English-language journals. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool with 9 questions separated into 4 domains (patient selection or study design, index measure, criterion measure, and flow and time).

Results

Of the 13,285 unique search results, 222 (1.67%) articles were included. Most studies (153/237, 64.6%) validated an intensity measure outcome such as energy expenditure. However, only 19.8% (47/237) validated biological state and 15.6% (37/237) validated posture or activity-type outcomes. Across all studies, 163 different wearables were identified. Of these, 58.9% (96/163) were validated only once. ActiGraph GT3X/GT3X+ (36/163, 22.1%), Fitbit Flex (20/163, 12.3%), and ActivPAL (12/163, 7.4%) were used most often in the included studies. The percentage of participants meeting the quality criteria ranged from 38.8% (92/237) to 92.4% (219/237). On the basis of our classification tree to evaluate the overall study quality, 4.6% (11/237) of studies were classified as low risk. Furthermore, 16% (38/237) of studies were classified as having some concerns, and 72.9% (173/237) of studies were classified as high risk.

Conclusions

Overall, free-living validation studies of wearables are characterized by low methodological quality, large variability in design, and focus on intensity. Future research should strongly aim at biological state and posture or activity outcomes and strive for standardized protocols embedded in a validation framework. Standardized protocols for free-living validation embedded in a framework are urgently needed to inform and guide stakeholders (eg, manufacturers, scientists, and consumers) in selecting wearables for self-tracking purposes, applying wearables in health studies, and fostering innovation to achieve improved validity.

Alternatives for Measuring Sitting Accumulation in Workplace Surveys

OBJECTIVES

To develop and assess the measurement properties of self-report measures of accumulation of sitting time.

METHODS

Seven candidate measures were collected in 51 workers from three office environments (79% women) via online questionnaire administered immediately before and after 7-day monitoring periods (activPAL3 24-hour protocol with diary recorded work hours).

RESULTS

Three measures had some validity (P < 0.05 vs activPAL): % of sitting in long bouts more than or equal to 30 minutes, sitting strategy frequency (0 to 100), and interruption rate (n/h sitting). Agreement was limited. Some reliability (intraclass correlation or kappa P < 0.05) was seen for these measures, strategy variety (0 to 100), typical day (five categories), and making a conscious effort to sit less (yes/no).

CONCLUSIONS

Two brief and one longer option may suit workplace studies requiring self-report measures of sitting accumulation. Validity was weaker for sitting accumulation than sitting time.

Validity of the occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire (OSPAQ) for home-based office workers during the COVID-19 global pandemic: A secondary analysis

High levels of occupational sitting is an emerging health concern. As working from home has become a common practice as a result of COVID-19, it is imperative to validate an appropriate self-report measure to assess sitting in this setting. This secondary analysis study aimed to validate the occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire (OSPAQ) against an activPAL4™ in full-time home-based 'office' workers (n = 148; mean age = 44.90). Participants completed a modified version of the OSPAQ and wore an activPAL4™ for a full work week. The findings suggest that the modified OSPAQ has fair levels of validity in terms of correlation for sitting and standing (ρ = 0.35-0.43, all p < 0.05) and agreement (bias = 2-12%) at the group level; however, estimates were poor at an individual level, as suggested by wide limits of agreement (±22-30%). Overall, the OSPAQ showed to be an easily administered and valid questionnaire to measure group level sitting and standing in this sample of adults.

Ergonomics training coupled with new Sit-Stand workstation implementation influences usage

Currently, there is no guidance on the training programme approach that should be provided to new sit-stand workstation users to optimally integrate workstation usage patterns into their working day. The objective of this research study was to determine if a training programme could influence long-term usage of sit-stand workstations. Thirty-five employees from the University of Waterloo volunteered to participate in this longitudinal study. Two different types of training programmes were delivered: (1) an example from industry and (2) based on current literature. There was an influence of training programme on the frequency of sit to stand transitions made each day. Those who received the additional training programme also reported sitting less, standing more and used their sit-stand workstations more consistently day-to-day than those who did not. Practitioner Summary: A longitudinal study was conducted to assess the impact of training programmes on sit-stand workstation usage. A training programme based on current literature resulted in more consistent sit-stand usage than an industry example.

Associations between health-related quality of life and health behaviors in Australian nursing students

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is being increasingly studied as an indicator of wellbeing. This study evaluated the HRQoL of nursing students and relationships between lifestyle behaviors including smoking, diet, alcohol intake and physical activity. A cross-sectional study was conducted in 2018 using the Short-Form 12V2 to measure the HRQoL of 475 students from both regional and metropolitan universities in Queensland, Australia. z-scores were aggregated into a Physical Composite Score (PCS) and a Mental Composite Score (MCS). Multivariate linear regression was used to explore the associations. Nursing students (94.5% female) had lower HRQoL scores relative to the general Australian population. Students enrolled at the regional university, with higher income; higher intakes of vitamin A, calcium, and iodine; and more physical activity had a higher Mental Composite Score, but those with health conditions and high intakes of meat, fat, carbohydrates, and sugar reported lower Physical Composite Score compared to their counterparts. Skipping breakfast, physical inactivity, and alcohol score were inversely associated with HRQoL. This study highlights the need for strategies to address the poor lifestyle and HRQoL in nursing students to support their physical and mental health.

Concurrent and discriminant validity of ActiGraph waist and wrist cut-points to measure sedentary behaviour, activity level, and posture in office work

Background

Sedentary Behaviour (SB) gets an increasing attention from ergonomics and public health due to its associated detrimental health effects. A large number of studies record SB with ActiGraph counts-per-minute cut-points, but we still lack valid information about what the cut-points tell us about office work. This study therefore analysed the concurrent and discriminant validity of commonly used cut-points to measure SB, activity level, and posture.

Methods

Thirty office workers completed four office tasks at three workplaces (conventional chair, activity-promoting chair, and standing desk) while wearing two ActiGraphs (waist and wrist). Indirect calorimetry and prescribed posture served as reference criteria. Generalized Estimation Equations analysed workplace and task effects on the activity level and counts-per-minute, and kappa statistics and ROC curves analysed the cut-point validity.

Results

The activity-promoting chair (p < 0.001, ES ≥ 0.66) but not the standing desk (p = 1.0) increased the activity level, and both these workplaces increased the waist (p ≤ 0.003, ES ≥ 0.63) but not the wrist counts-per-minute (p = 0.74) compared to the conventional chair. The concurrent and discriminant validity was higher for activity level (kappa: 0.52–0.56 and 0.38–0.45, respectively) than for SB and posture (kappa ≤0.35 and ≤ 0.19, respectively). Furthermore, the discriminant validity for activity level was higher for task effects (kappa: 0.42–0.48) than for workplace effects (0.13–0.24).

Conclusions

ActiGraph counts-per-minute for waist and wrist placement were – independently of the chosen cut-point – a measure for activity level and not for SB or posture, and the cut-points performed better to detect task effects than workplace effects. Waist cut-points were most valid to measure the activity level in conventional seated office work, but they showed severe limitations for sit-stand desks. None of the placements was valid to detect the increased activity on the activity-promoting chair. Caution should therefore be paid when analysing the effect of workplace interventions on activity level with ActiGraph waist and wrist cut-points.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-10387-7.

Evaluation framework for selecting wearable activity monitors for research

BACKGROUND

Wearable devices that support activity tracking and other measurements hold great potential to increase awareness of health behaviors and support the management of chronic health conditions. There is a scarcity of guidance for researchers of all disciplines when planning new studies to evaluate and select technologies appropriate for study purpose, population, and overall context. The aim of this study was to develop and test an evaluation framework to rapidly and systematically evaluate and select consumer-grade wearable devices that serve individual study needs in preparation for evaluations with target populations.

METHODS

The wearable evaluation framework was defined based on published literature and past research experiences of the research team. We tested the framework with example case studies to select devices for two different research projects focused on aging-in-place and gestational diabetes. We show how knowledge of target population and research goals help prioritize application of the criteria to inform device selection and how project requirements inform sequence of criteria application.

RESULTS

The framework for wearable device evaluation includes 27 distinct evaluation criteria: 12 for everyday use by users, 6 on device functionality, and 9 on infrastructure for developing the research infrastructure required to obtain the data. We evaluated 10 devices from four vendors. After prioritizing the framework criteria based on the two example case studies, we selected the Withings Steele HR, Garmin Vivosmart HR+ and Garmin Forerunner 35 for further evaluation through user studies with the target populations.

CONCLUSIONS

The aim of this paper was to develop and test a framework for researchers to rapidly evaluate suitability of consumer grade wearable devices for specific research projects. The use of this evaluation framework is not intended to identify a definitive single best device, but to systematically narrow the field of potential device candidates for testing with target study populations. Future work will include application of the framework within different research projects for further refinement.

The occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire (OSPAQ): a validation study with accelerometer-assessed measures

Background

The Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire (OSPAQ) was developed as an easy-to-use instrument for self-reported assessment of percentage sitting, standing, walking, and performing heavy labour in a workplace setting. This study aimed to evaluate the concurrent validity of all dimensions of the OSPAQ compared to accelerometer-assessed measures of occupational physical activities in a mixed sample of sedentary and physically active professions.

Methods

Data from the Flemish Employees’ Physical Activity (FEPA) study were used, including employees from the service and production sector. All participants filled in a questionnaire, underwent clinical measurements, and wore two Axivity AX3 accelerometers for at least 2 consecutive working days. Intraclass (ICC) and Spearman rho correlations (r) were analyzed to assess concurrent validity.

Results

The sample included 401 workers (16% sedentary profession) with a mean age of 39.2 (± 11) years. Concurrent validity was good and moderate for assessing percentage of sitting (ICC = 0.84; r = 0.53), and standing (ICC = 0.64; r = 0.53), respectively. The concurrent validity for walking was weak to moderate (ICC = 0.50; r = 0.49), and weak for performing heavy labour (ICC = 0.28; r = 0.35). Stronger validity scores were found in sedentary professions for occupational sitting and standing. In physically active professions, an underestimation of self-reported sitting and standing was found, and an overestimation of self-reported walking and heavy labour. No significant self-reported over- or underestimation was found for sitting and heavy labour in sedentary professions, but an underestimation of self-reported standing and an overestimation of self-reported walking was observed.

Conclusions

The OSPAQ has acceptable measurement properties for assessing occupational sitting and standing. Accelerometer-assessed measures of occupational walking and heavy labour are recommended, since a poor concurrent validity was found for both.

Validity of long-term and short-term recall of occupational sitting time in Finnish and Chinese office workers

BACKGROUND

As sedentary behavior is a global health issue, there is a need for methods of self-reported sitting assessment. The accuracy and reliability of these methods should also be tested in various populations and different cultural contexts. This study examined the validity of long-term and short-term recall of occupational sitting time in Finnish and Chinese subgroups.

METHODS

Two cohort groups of office-based workers (58.6% female, age range 22-67 years) participated: a Finnish group (FIN, n = 34) and a Chinese group (CHI, n = 36). Long-term (past 3-month sitting) and short-term (daily sitting assessed on 5 consecutive days) single-item measures were used to assess self-reported occupational sitting time. Values from each participant were compared to objectively measured occupational sitting time assessed via thigh-mounted accelerometers, with Spearman's rho (ρ) used to assess validity and the Bland-Altman method used to evaluate agreement. Coefficients of variation depicted day-to-day variability of time spent on sitting at work.

RESULTS

In the total study sample, the results showed that both long-term and short-term recall correlated with accelerometer-derived sitting time (ρ = 0.532, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.336-0.684, p< 0.001; ρ = 0.533, 95%CI: 0.449-0.607, p< 0.001, respectively). Compared to objectively measured sitting time, self-reported occupational sitting time was 2.4% (95%CI: -0.5% to 5.3%, p = 0.091) and 2.2% (95%CI: 0.7%-3.6%, p = 0.005) greater for long-term and short-term recall, respectively. The agreement level was within the range -21.2% to 25.9% for long-term recall, and -24.2% to 28.5% for short-term recall. During a 5-day work week, day-to-day variation of sitting time was 9.4% ± 11.4% according to short-term recall and 10.4% ± 8.4% according to accelerometry-derived occupational sitting time.

CONCLUSION

Overall, both long-term and short-term self-reported instruments provide acceptable measures of occupational sitting time in an office-based workplace, but their utility at the individual level is limited due to large variability.

Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Subjective measures of sedentary behaviour (SB) (i.e. questionnaires and diaries/logs) are widely implemented, and can be useful for capturing type and context of SBs. However, little is known about comparative validity and reliability. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to: 1) identify subjective methods to assess overall, domain- and behaviour-specific SB, and 2) examine the validity and reliability of these methods.

METHODS

The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus were searched up to March 2020. Inclusion criteria were: 1) assessment of SB, 2) evaluation of subjective measurement tools, 3) being performed in healthy adults, 4) manuscript written in English, and 5) paper was peer-reviewed. Data of validity and/or reliability measurements was extracted from included studies and a meta-analysis using random effects was performed to assess the pooled correlation coefficients of the validity.

RESULTS

The systematic search resulted in 2423 hits. After excluding duplicates and screening on title and abstract, 82 studies were included with 75 self-reported measurement tools. There was wide variability in the measurement properties and quality of the studies. The criterion validity varied between poor-to-excellent (correlation coefficient [R] range - 0.01- 0.90) with logs/diaries (R = 0.63 [95%CI 0.48-0.78]) showing higher criterion validity compared to questionnaires (R = 0.35 [95%CI 0.32-0.39]). Furthermore, correlation coefficients of single- and multiple-item questionnaires were comparable (1-item R = 0.34; 2-to-9-items R = 0.35; ≥10-items R = 0.37). The reliability of SB measures was moderate-to-good, with the quality of these studies being mostly fair-to-good.

CONCLUSION

Logs and diaries are recommended to validly and reliably assess self-reported SB. However, due to time and resources constraints, 1-item questionnaires may be preferred to subjectively assess SB in large-scale observations when showing similar validity and reliability compared to longer questionnaires.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018105994.

Supporting Workers to Sit Less and Move More Through the Web-Based BeUpstanding Program: Protocol for a Single-Arm, Repeated Measures Implementation Study

BACKGROUND

The web-based BeUpstanding Champion Toolkit was developed to support work teams in addressing the emergent work health and safety issue of excessive sitting. It provides a step-by-step guide and associated resources that equip a workplace representative-the champion-to adopt and deliver the 8-week intervention program (BeUpstanding) to their work team. The evidence-informed program is designed to raise awareness of the benefits of sitting less and moving more, build a supportive culture for change, and encourage staff to take action to achieve this change. Work teams collectively choose the strategies they want to implement and promote to stand up, sit less, and move more, with this bespoke and participative approach ensuring the strategies are aligned with the team's needs and existing culture. BeUpstanding has been iteratively developed and optimized through a multiphase process to ensure that it is fit for purpose for wide-scale implementation.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to describe the current version of BeUpstanding, and the methods and protocol for a national implementation trial.

METHODS

The trial will be conducted in collaboration with five Australian workplace health and safety policy and practice partners. Desk-based work teams from a variety of industries will be recruited from across Australia via partner-led referral pathways. Recruitment will target sectors (small business, rural or regional, call center, blue collar, and government) that are of priority to the policy and practice partners. A minimum of 50 work teams will be recruited per priority sector with a minimum of 10,000 employees exposed to the program. A single-arm, repeated-measures design will assess the short-term (end of program) and long-term (9 months postprogram) impacts. Data will be collected on the web via surveys and toolkit analytics and by the research team via telephone calls with champions. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance Framework will guide the evaluation, with assessment of the adoption/reach of the program (the number and characteristics of work teams and participating staff), program implementation (completion by the champion of core program components), effectiveness (on workplace sitting, standing, and moving), and maintenance (sustainability of changes). There will be an economic evaluation of the costs and outcomes of scaling up to national implementation, including intervention affordability and sustainability.

RESULTS

The study received funding in June 2018 and the original protocol was approved by institutional review board on January 9, 2017, with national implementation trial consent and protocol amendment approved March 12, 2019. The trial started on June 12, 2019, with 48 teams recruited as of December 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation and multimethod evaluation of BeUpstanding will provide the practice-based evidence needed for informing the potential broader dissemination of the program.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617000682347; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=372843&isReview=true.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/15756.

The descriptive epidemiology of standing activity during free-living in 5412 middle-aged adults: the 1970 British Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Standing is often classified as light-intensity physical activity, with potential health benefits compared with sitting. Standing is, however, rarely captured as an independent activity. To better understand free-living standing behaviour at a population level, we incorporated a gold standard postural allocation technique into a national cohort study.

METHODS

Participants (n=5412, aged 46.8±0.7 years) from the 1970 British Cohort Study were fitted with a water-proofed thigh-mounted accelerometer device (activPAL3 micro) worn 24 hours continuously over 7 days (90.7% provided at least 3 full days). We examined the correlates of free-living standing during waking hours.

RESULTS

Total daily standing time averaged 4.6±1.5 h/d, accounting for 29% of waking hours, which was largely (98.7%) accumulated in bouts lasting less than 30 min. In mutually adjusted models, male sex, obesity, diabetes, professional occupation, poor self-rated health and disability were associated with lower device-measured standing times.

CONCLUSION

Middle-aged people in Britain spent a surprisingly large proportion of the day in activities involving standing. Standing merits attention as a health-related posture and may represent a potential target for public health intervention.

Impact and process evaluation of a co-designed 'Move More, Sit Less' intervention in a public sector workplace

BACKGROUND

High levels of sitting are associated with increased risk of adverse health outcomes, including chronic disease. Extensive sitting at work is common, hence organisations should provide options to employees to reduce prolonged sitting.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and acceptability of a co-designed intervention to increase standing and reduce sitting in a public-sector office.

METHODS

Forty-six adults participated in the quasi-experimental study (30 intervention; 16 control). The intervention involved providing sit-stand desks, prompts, workshops, and information emails to assist behavior change. Participants wore a thigh-mounted Actigraph GT3X+ for five working days and responded to an online questionnaire at baseline (BL), 6 (T1) and 13 weeks (T2) post intervention.

RESULTS

Inclinometer-measured proportion of time standing increased in the intervention group from 14% (baseline) to 28% (T1) and 27% (T2) (67 minutes more standing over an 8-hour workday). Intervention participants reduced sitting time from 79% (BL) to 63% (T1 and T2), (80 minutes less sitting over an 8-hour workday). The control group showed no changes. The program was highly recommended (94%), and perceived to support behavior change (81%).

CONCLUSIONS

This Move More, Sit Less intervention appears to be efficacious and acceptable. Future interventions should be co-designed to ensure culturally appropriate components and higher acceptability.

A comparison of self-reported and device measured sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sedentary behaviour (SB) is a risk factor for chronic disease and premature mortality. While many individual studies have examined the reliability and validity of various self-report measures for assessing SB, it is not clear, in general, how self-reported SB (e.g., questionnaires, logs, ecological momentary assessments (EMAs)) compares to device measures (e.g., accelerometers, inclinometers).

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this systematic review was to compare self-report versus device measures of SB in adults.

METHODS

Six bibliographic databases were searched to identify all studies which included a comparable self-report and device measure of SB in adults. Risk of bias within and across studies was assessed. Results were synthesized using meta-analyses.

RESULTS

The review included 185 unique studies. A total of 123 studies comprising 173 comparisons and data from 55,199 participants were used to examine general criterion validity. The average mean difference was -105.19 minutes/day (95% CI: -127.21, -83.17); self-report underestimated sedentary time by ~1.74 hours/day compared to device measures. Self-reported time spent sedentary at work was ~40 minutes higher than when assessed by devices. Single item measures performed more poorly than multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries. On average, when compared to inclinometers, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries were not significantly different, but had substantial amount of variability (up to 6 hours/day within individual studies) with approximately half over-reporting and half under-reporting. A total of 54 studies provided an assessment of reliability of a self-report measure, on average the reliability was good (ICC = 0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from this review suggests that single-item self-report measures generally underestimate sedentary time when compared to device measures. For accuracy, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries with a shorter recall period should be encouraged above single item questions and longer recall periods if sedentary time is a primary outcome of study. Users should also be aware of the high degree of variability between and within tools. Studies should exert caution when comparing associations between different self-report and device measures with health outcomes.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019118755.

Responsiveness of Device-Based and Self-Report Measures of Physical Activity to Detect Behavior Change in Men Taking Part in the Football Fans in Training (FFIT) Program

The capacity of physical activity (PA) measures to detect changes in PA within interventions is crucial. This is the first study to examine the responsiveness of activPAL3™ and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ; Short Form) in detecting PA change during a 12-week group-based, men-only weight management program-Football Fans in Training (FFIT). Participants wore an activPAL3™ and completed the IPAQ pre- and post-program (n = 30). Relationships between change scores were assessed by Spearman's correlations. Mean or median changes in PA were measured using paired samples t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Responsiveness to change was assessed utilizing Standardized Response Mean (SRM). Both device-based and self-report measures demonstrated significant changes pre-post intervention, although these changes were not significantly correlated. The SRM values for changes in activPAL3™ metrics were: 0.54 (MET-mins/day); 0.53 (step counts/day); and 0.44 (MVPA/day), indicating a small to medium responsiveness to change. SRM values for changes in IPAQ scores were: 0.59 (for total PA mins/day); 0.54 (for total MET-mins/day); 0.59 (for walking MET-mins/day); 0.38 (for vigorous MET-mins/day); and 0.38 (for moderate MET-mins/day), revealing a small to medium responsiveness to change. These findings reveal that two commonly used device-based and self-report measures demonstrated responsiveness to changes in PA. While inclusion of both device-based and self-report measures is desirable within interventions it is not always feasible. The results from this study support that self-reported measures can detect PA change within behavioral interventions, although may have a tendency to overestimate changes compared with device-based measures on absolute values, but not standardized response values.

Impact of a low-cost standing desk on reducing workplace sitting (StandUP UBC): A randomised controlled trial

Sit-stand desks can reduce occupational sitting time, however, their cost can limit scalability. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a low-cost standing desk on objectively-measured occupational sitting and prolonged sitting bouts over 3- and 6-months. Secondary outcomes included self-report work engagement and occupational fatigue. Forty-eight office employees (91.7% female, M_age = 39.8 ± 10.1) were randomized to receive a low-cost standing desk or to a control group. At 3-months, the intervention group sat 0.7 h (42min) less at work compared to the control group; F(1, 45) = 5.90, partial η² = 0.12, p = .019. The effect was small, yet comparable to findings from studies using costlier alternatives. However, these reductions were not maintained at 6-months. No changes in prolonged sitting bouts or secondary outcomes were found. There is some potential for low-cost standing desk converters as a scalable workplace health intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03375749, Registered 18 December 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03375749?term=NCT03375749&rank=1.

A Comparison of Activity Monitor Data from Devices Worn on the Wrist and the Waist in People with Parkinson's Disease

Background

It is unclear if it is appropriate for people with Parkinson's disease (PD) to wear activity monitors on the wrist because of the potential influence of impairments on the data.

Objective

The objective of this study was to determine (1) whether activity monitor data collected from devices worn at the wrist and waist are comparable and (2) the contribution of PD impairments to any differences in step and activity counts at the wrist and waist.

Methods

A total of 46 community-dwelling people with PD wore an accelerometer at the wrist and waist simultaneously for 1 week. Motor impairments (rigidity, bradykinesia, tremor, dyskinesia) were assessed using the Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III (motor examination) and part IV (motor complications).

Results

Higher values were recorded by the wrist monitor for steps/day (wrist, 9236 [standard deviation (SD) 3812]; waist, 5324 [SD 2800]; difference 3912; P < 0.001) and activity counts/day (wrist, 872,590 [SD 349,148]; waist, 186,491 [SD 101,989]; difference 686,099; P < 0.001). However, the wrist and waist values were strongly correlated (steps, r = 0.89; counts, r = 0.74; P ≤ 0.001). Increased tremor and dyskinesia explained 19% of the variation in the difference in average steps/day, and these variables plus reduced bradykinesia explained 24% of the variation in the difference in average activity counts/day.

Conclusion

Wrist monitors are likely to overestimate activity, particularly in people with tremor and dyskinesia. Nonetheless, activity monitors can be worn on the wrist if the aim is to monitor change rather than accurately record activity.

The Dynamic Work study: study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial of an occupational health intervention aimed at reducing sitting time in office workers

Background

Large volumes of sitting time have been associated with multiple health risks. To reduce sitting time of office workers working for a Dutch insurance company, the Dynamic Work intervention was developed. The primary objective of this paper is to describe the study protocol of the Dynamic Work study, which aims to evaluate if this multicomponent intervention is (cost-)effective in reducing total sitting time on the short-term (≈3 months) and longer-term (≈12 months) compared to usual practice.

Methods/design

This two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial will recruit 250 desk-based office workers working at different locations of an insurance company in the Netherlands. After baseline measurements, departments will be matched in pairs and each pair will be randomly assigned to the control or intervention condition. The multicomponent intervention contains organizational (i.e. face to face session with the head of the department), work environmental (i.e. the introduction of sit-stand desks and cycling workstations), and individual elements (i.e. counselling and activity/sitting tracker with a self-help program booklet). The counselling involves two group intervention sessions and four on-site department consultations with an occupational physiotherapist. Sitting time (primary outcome), upright time and step counts will be assessed objectively using the activPAL activity monitor at baseline, short-term (approximately 3 months) and longer-term (12 months). Other outcomes will include: self-reported lifestyle behaviours, anthropometrics, work-related outcomes (i.e. absenteeism, presenteeism, work performance, work-related stress), health-related outcomes (i.e. vitality, musculoskeletal symptoms, need for recovery, quality of life), and costs from both company and societal perspective. The study will include economic and process evaluations.

Discussion

This study will assess the longer-term (cost-) effectiveness of a multicomponent workplace intervention aimed at reducing sitting time in comparison with usual practice. Furthermore, the process evaluation will provide insights in factors associated with successful implementation of this intervention.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT03115645; Registered 13 April 2017. Retrospectively registered.

Criterion validity and test-retest reliability of SED-GIH, a single item question for assessment of daily sitting time

Background

Sedentary behaviour has been closely linked to metabolic and cardiovascular health and is therefore of importance in disease prevention. A user-friendly tool for assessment of sitting time is thus needed. Previous studies concluded that the present tools used to assess a number of sedentary behaviours are more likely to overestimate sitting than single-item questions which often underestimate sitting time, and that categorical answering options are recommended. In line with this, the single-item question with categorical answering options, SED-GIH, was developed.

The aim of this study was to investigate the criterion validity of the SED-GIH question using activPAL3 micro as the criterion measure. The second aim was to evaluate the test-retest reliability of the SED-GIH questionnaire.

Method

In the validity section of this study, 284 middle-aged adults answered a web questionnaire, which included SED-GIH, wore activPAL and filled in a diary log for one week. Spearman’s rho assessed the relationship between the SED-GIH answers and the daily average sitting time as monitored by the activPAL (activPAL-SIT), a Weighted Kappa assessed the agreement, ANOVA assessed differences in activPAL-SIT between the SED-GIH answer categories, and a Chi² compared the proportions of hazardous sitters between the different SED-GIH answer categories. In the reliability section, 95 elderly participants answered the SED-GIH question twice, with a mean interval of 5.2 days. The reliability was assessed with ICC and a weighted Kappa.

Results

The SED-GIH question correlated moderately with activPAL-SIT (rho = 0.31), with a poor agreement (weighted Kappa 0.12). In total, 40.8% underestimated and 22.2% overestimated their sitting time. The ANOVA showed significant differences in activPAL-SIT between the different SED-GIH answer categories (p < 0.001). The Chi² showed a significant difference in proportion of individuals sitting more than 10 h per day within each SED-GIH answer category. ICC for the test-retest reliability of SED-GIH was excellent with ICC = 0.86, and the weighted Kappa showed an agreement of 0.77.

Conclusions

The unanchored single item SED-GIH question showed excellent reliability but poor validity in the investigated populations. Validity and reliability of SED-GIH is in line with other questionnaires that are commonly used when assessing sitting time.

Validation of a Novel Device to Measure and Provide Feedback on Sedentary Behavior

Purpose

Pedometers, which enable self-monitoring of step counts, are effective in facilitating increases in physical activity. Similar devices which provide real-time feedback on sedentary (sitting) behavior are limited. This study aimed to develop and validate a novel device—the SitFIT—which could accurately measure and provide feedback on sedentary behavior and physical activity.

Methods

The SitFIT is a triaxial accelerometer, developed by PAL Technologies, which is worn in the front trouser pocket. This enables tracking of thigh inclination and therefore differentiation between sitting and upright postures, as well as tracking of step count. It has a display to provide user feedback. To determine the validity of the SitFIT for measuring sedentary behavior and step counts, 21 men, age 30 to 65 yr, with body mass index 26.6 ± 3.9 kg·m⁻² wore a SitFIT in a front trouser pocket and an activPAL accelerometer attached to their thigh for up to 7 d. Outputs from the SitFIT were compared with the activPAL, which was assumed to provide criterion standard measurements of sitting and step counts.

Results

Mean step counts were approximately 4% lower with the SitFIT than activPAL, with correlation between the two methods being very high (r = 0.98) and no obvious bias from the line of equality (regression line, y = 1.0035x + 418.35). Mean sedentary time was approximately 5% higher with the SitFIT than activPAL, correlation between methods was high (r = 0.84), and the equation of the regression line was close to the line of equality (y = 0.8728x + 38.445).

Conclusions

The SitFIT has excellent validity for measurement of free-living step counts and sedentary time and therefore addresses a clear need for a device that can be used as a tool to provide feedback on sedentary behavior to facilitate behavior change.

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work

BACKGROUND

A large number of people are employed in sedentary occupations. Physical inactivity and excessive sitting at workplaces have been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and all-cause mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness 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, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to 9 August 2017. We also screened reference lists of articles and contacted authors to find more studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over RCTs, cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs), and quasi-RCTs of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or measured using devices such as an accelerometer-inclinometer and duration and number of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more. We considered energy expenditure, total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), time spent standing at work, 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 found 34 studies - including two cross-over RCTs, 17 RCTs, seven cluster-RCTs, and eight controlled before-and-after studies - with a total of 3,397 participants, all from high-income countries. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (16 studies), workplace policy changes (four studies), information and counselling (11 studies), and multi-component interventions (four studies). One study included both physical workplace changes and information and counselling components. We did not find any studies that specifically investigated the effects of standing meetings or walking meetings on sitting time.Physical workplace changesInterventions using sit-stand desks, either alone or in combination with information and counselling, reduced sitting time at work on average by 100 minutes per workday at short-term follow-up (up to three months) compared to sit-desks (95% confidence interval (CI) -116 to -84, 10 studies, low-quality evidence). The pooled effect of two studies showed sit-stand desks reduced sitting time at medium-term follow-up (3 to 12 months) by an average of 57 minutes per day (95% CI -99 to -15) compared to sit-desks. Total sitting time (including sitting at and outside work) also decreased with sit-stand desks compared to sit-desks (mean difference (MD) -82 minutes/day, 95% CI -124 to -39, two studies) as did the duration of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -53 minutes/day, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies, very low-quality evidence).We found no significant difference between the effects of standing desks and sit-stand desks on reducing sitting at work. Active workstations, such as treadmill desks or cycling desks, had unclear or inconsistent effects on sitting time.Workplace policy changesWe found no significant effects for implementing walking strategies on workplace sitting time at short-term (MD -15 minutes per day, 95% CI -50 to 19, low-quality evidence, one study) and medium-term (MD -17 minutes/day, 95% CI -61 to 28, one study) follow-up. Short breaks (one to two minutes every half hour) reduced time spent sitting at work on average by 40 minutes per day (95% CI -66 to -15, one study, low-quality evidence) compared to long breaks (two 15-minute breaks per workday) at short-term follow-up.Information and counsellingProviding information, feedback, counselling, or all of these resulted in no significant change in time spent sitting at work at short-term follow-up (MD -19 minutes per day, 95% CI -57 to 19, two studies, low-quality evidence). However, the reduction was significant at medium-term follow-up (MD -28 minutes per day, 95% CI -51 to -5, two studies, low-quality evidence).Computer prompts combined with information resulted in no significant change in sitting time at work at short-term follow-up (MD -14 minutes per day, 95% CI -39 to 10, three studies, low-quality evidence), but at medium-term follow-up they produced a significant reduction (MD -55 minutes per day, 95% CI -96 to -14, one study). Furthermore, computer prompting resulted in a significant decrease in the average number (MD -1.1, 95% CI -1.9 to -0.3, one study) and duration (MD -74 minutes per day, 95% CI -124 to -24, one study) of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more.Computer prompts with instruction to stand reduced sitting at work on average by 14 minutes per day (95% CI 10 to 19, one study) more than computer prompts with instruction to walk at least 100 steps at short-term follow-up.We found no significant reduction in workplace sitting time at medium-term follow-up following mindfulness training (MD -23 minutes per day, 95% CI -63 to 17, one study, low-quality evidence). Similarly a single study reported no change in sitting time at work following provision of highly personalised or contextualised information and less personalised or contextualised information. One study found no significant effects of activity trackers on sitting time at work.Multi-component interventions Combining multiple interventions had significant but heterogeneous effects on sitting time at work (573 participants, three studies, very low-quality evidence) and on time spent in prolonged sitting bouts (two studies, very low-quality evidence) at short-term follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present there is low-quality evidence that the use of sit-stand desks reduce workplace sitting at short-term and medium-term follow-ups. However, there is no evidence on their effects on sitting over longer follow-up periods. Effects of other types of interventions, including workplace policy changes, provision of information and counselling, and multi-component interventions, are mostly inconsistent. The quality of evidence is low to very low for most interventions, mainly because of limitations in study protocols and small sample sizes. There is a need for larger cluster-RCTs with longer-term follow-ups to determine the effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce sitting time at work.

Associations of neighborhood environmental attributes with adults' objectively-assessed sedentary time: IPEN adult multi-country study

Neighborhood environmental attributes have been found to be associated with residents' time spent walking and in physical activity, in studies from single countries and in multiple-country investigations. There are, however, mixed findings on such environmental relationships with sedentary (sitting) time, which primarily have used evidence derived from single-country investigations with self-reported behavioral outcome measures. We examined potential relationships of neighborhood environmental attributes with objectively-assessed sedentary time using data from 5712 adults recruited from higher and lower socio-economic status neighborhoods in 12 sites in 10 countries, between 2002 and 2011. Ten perceived neighborhood attributes, derived from an internationally-validated scale, were assessed by questionnaire. Sedentary time was derived from hip-worn accelerometer data. Associations of individual environmental attributes and a composite environmental index with sedentary time were estimated using generalized additive mixed models. In fully adjusted models, higher street connectivity was significantly related to lower sedentary time. Residential density, pedestrian infrastructure and safety, and lack of barriers to walking were related to higher sedentary time. Aesthetics and safety from crime were related to less sedentary time in women only. The predicted difference in sedentary time between those with the minimum versus maximum composite environmental index values was 71 min/day. Overall, certain built environment attributes, including street connectivity, land use mix and aesthetics were found to be related to sedentary behavior in both expected and unexpected directions. Further research using context-specific measures of sedentary time is required to improve understanding of the potential role of built environment characteristics as influences on adults' sedentary behavior.

Interventions targeting sedentary behavior in non-working older adults: a systematic review

Sedentary behavior has been found to be associated with negative health outcomes independently of physical activity in older adults. This systematic review collates interventions to reduce sedentary behavior in non-working older adults, assessing whether they are effective, feasible, and safe. A systematic search identified 2560 studies across five databases. Studies were included where participants were ≥60 years on average with none younger than 45, and participants did not work >2 days per week. A total of six studies were identified, three of which included control groups, while the other three were repeated-measures pre-post designs. Only one study randomised participants. The overall level of quality of included studies was poor. A narrative synthesis was conducted, as the level of heterogeneity in outcomes and outcome reporting were too high for a meta-analysis to be performed. The narrative synthesis suggested that interventions have the potential to reduce sitting time in non-working older adults. Included studies reported feasible and safe implementations of their interventions in most samples, except for one subsample from a study of people in sheltered housing. Objectively measured reductions in sitting time were between 3.2% and 5.3% of waking time, or up to 53.9 min per day. Future studies should employ more rigorous designs to assess the effects of reducing sedentary behavior on health and physical function, and should include follow-ups to measure the duration of behavior change.

Long-Term Access to Sit-Stand Workstations in a Large Office Population: User Profiles Reveal Differences in Sitting Time and Perceptions

Background: To decrease the detrimental health effects of prolonged sitting, the implementation of sit-stand workstations is a commonly used intervention for office workers. Most studies on this topic evaluated the effects of newly introduced sit-stand workstations. The objective of this study was to determine how often and how long the standing option is used and how the use of sit-stand workstations is perceived in office workers with long-term access to these workstations. Methods: Using an online survey, 1098 office employees responded to questions about frequency of usage of the sit-stand workstation, sitting time, physical activity, and positive and negative perceptions of the use of the sit-stand workstations. Results: Based on the frequency of use, three user groups were identified: non-users (32.1%), monthly/weekly users (37.5%) and daily users (30.4%). Non-users reported to sit more, stand less and have longer bouts of sitting, compared to monthly/weekly users, and these differences were even larger compared to daily users. A higher proportion of daily users perceived the use of the sit-stand workstation as being more healthy and appealing and making them more productive and energetic compared to the non-users. A higher proportion of the non-users perceived it as being uncomfortable, distracting, and unpractical, compared to the other user groups. Conclusions: The differences between the three identified user groups with respect to sitting, standing and perceptions of sit-stand workstations, might be helpful in tailoring future interventions to reduce occupational sitting time, to increase the reach, effectiveness and sustainability.

Assessing the Feasibility and Pre-Post Impact Evaluation of the Beta (Test) Version of the BeUpstanding Champion Toolkit in Reducing Workplace Sitting: Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

The Web-based, evidence-informed BeUpstanding Champion Toolkit was developed to provide employers (via a "train-the-champion approach") with resources and support to help in reducing prolonged sitting in their own desk-based workplace. As part of a five-phase research-to-dissemination process, this study reports on the evaluation of the beta (test) version of this toolkit (Phase 2).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to evaluate (1) the implementation of the toolkit by workplace champions and (2) the impact of the toolkit on sitting (primary outcome), standing, and moving; use of activity-promoting strategies; knowledge and attitudes; and indicators of health and work performance.

METHODS

An implementation study using a pre-post design was conducted in 7 desk-based workplaces in Australia (September 2015 to May 2016), with work teams (one per workplace) purposively recruited to ensure representation across a range of sectors (white- or blue-collar), organizational sizes (small or medium or large), and locations (metropolitan or regional). All staff within participating teams were invited to participate in the relevant toolkit activities. Implementation outcomes (time commitment required by champions and toolkit activities completed) were collected from each champion via telephone interviews. Changes in impact outcomes, measured via a Web-based questionnaire completed by employees at baseline and 3 months postimplementation, were assessed using mixed models, correcting for clustering.

RESULTS

Champions reported a 30-60 minutes per week time commitment to the toolkit activities. All teams formed a wellbeing committee and sent the staff surveys at both time points; most champions held a staff consultation workshop (6/7), identified team-level strategies within that workshop (5/7), used the communication resources provided within the toolkit (emails, posters; 6/7), and completed the action plan (5/7). In total, 52% (315 of ≈600) employees participated in at least one survey and 97 (16%) participated in both. At follow-up, there was a significant (P<.05) reduction in self-reported workplace sitting time compared to baseline (-6.3%, 95% CI -10.1 to -2.5; n=85) equating to ≈30 minutes per workday. Significant benefits were also observed for the use of activity-promoting strategies, with small, nonsignificant changes observed for knowledge and attitudes and indicators of health and work performance.

CONCLUSIONS

The beta version of the BeUpstanding Champion Toolkit was feasible to implement and effective in reducing self-reported workplace sitting across a broad range of desk-based workplaces. The next phase (Phase 3) will build on these findings to optimize the toolkit for wider-scale implementation and longer term evaluation.

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work

BACKGROUND

A large number of people are employed in sedentary occupations. Physical inactivity and excessive sitting at workplaces have been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and all-cause mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness 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, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to 9 August 2017. We also screened reference lists of articles and contacted authors to find more studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over RCTs, cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs), and quasi-RCTs of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or measured using devices such as an accelerometer-inclinometer and duration and number of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more. We considered energy expenditure, total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), time spent standing at work, 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 found 34 studies - including two cross-over RCTs, 17 RCTs, seven cluster-RCTs, and eight controlled before-and-after studies - with a total of 3,397 participants, all from high-income countries. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (16 studies), workplace policy changes (four studies), information and counselling (11 studies), and multi-component interventions (four studies). One study included both physical workplace changes and information and counselling components. We did not find any studies that specifically investigated the effects of standing meetings or walking meetings on sitting time.Physical workplace changesInterventions using sit-stand desks, either alone or in combination with information and counselling, reduced sitting time at work on average by 100 minutes per workday at short-term follow-up (up to three months) compared to sit-desks (95% confidence interval (CI) -116 to -84, 10 studies, low-quality evidence). The pooled effect of two studies showed sit-stand desks reduced sitting time at medium-term follow-up (3 to 12 months) by an average of 57 minutes per day (95% CI -99 to -15) compared to sit-desks. Total sitting time (including sitting at and outside work) also decreased with sit-stand desks compared to sit-desks (mean difference (MD) -82 minutes/day, 95% CI -124 to -39, two studies) as did the duration of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -53 minutes/day, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies, very low-quality evidence).We found no significant difference between the effects of standing desks and sit-stand desks on reducing sitting at work. Active workstations, such as treadmill desks or cycling desks, had unclear or inconsistent effects on sitting time.Workplace policy changesWe found no significant effects for implementing walking strategies on workplace sitting time at short-term (MD -15 minutes per day, 95% CI -50 to 19, low-quality evidence, one study) and medium-term (MD -17 minutes/day, 95% CI -61 to 28, one study) follow-up. Short breaks (one to two minutes every half hour) reduced time spent sitting at work on average by 40 minutes per day (95% CI -66 to -15, one study, low-quality evidence) compared to long breaks (two 15-minute breaks per workday) at short-term follow-up.Information and counsellingProviding information, feedback, counselling, or all of these resulted in no significant change in time spent sitting at work at short-term follow-up (MD -19 minutes per day, 95% CI -57 to 19, two studies, low-quality evidence). However, the reduction was significant at medium-term follow-up (MD -28 minutes per day, 95% CI -51 to -5, two studies, low-quality evidence).Computer prompts combined with information resulted in no significant change in sitting time at work at short-term follow-up (MD -10 minutes per day, 95% CI -45 to 24, two studies, low-quality evidence), but at medium-term follow-up they produced a significant reduction (MD -55 minutes per day, 95% CI -96 to -14, one study). Furthermore, computer prompting resulted in a significant decrease in the average number (MD -1.1, 95% CI -1.9 to -0.3, one study) and duration (MD -74 minutes per day, 95% CI -124 to -24, one study) of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more.Computer prompts with instruction to stand reduced sitting at work on average by 14 minutes per day (95% CI 10 to 19, one study) more than computer prompts with instruction to walk at least 100 steps at short-term follow-up.We found no significant reduction in workplace sitting time at medium-term follow-up following mindfulness training (MD -23 minutes per day, 95% CI -63 to 17, one study, low-quality evidence). Similarly a single study reported no change in sitting time at work following provision of highly personalised or contextualised information and less personalised or contextualised information. One study found no significant effects of activity trackers on sitting time at work.Multi-component interventions Combining multiple interventions had significant but heterogeneous effects on sitting time at work (573 participants, three studies, very low-quality evidence) and on time spent in prolonged sitting bouts (two studies, very low-quality evidence) at short-term follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present there is low-quality evidence that the use of sit-stand desks reduce workplace sitting at short-term and medium-term follow-ups. However, there is no evidence on their effects on sitting over longer follow-up periods. Effects of other types of interventions, including workplace policy changes, provision of information and counselling, and multi-component interventions, are mostly inconsistent. The quality of evidence is low to very low for most interventions, mainly because of limitations in study protocols and small sample sizes. There is a need for larger cluster-RCTs with longer-term follow-ups to determine the effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce sitting time at work.

Ecological Influences on Employees' Workplace Sedentary Behavior: A Cross-Sectional Study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between ecological factors and occupational sedentary behavior (SB).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional online survey.

SETTING

Participants were employees recruited from a large, public university in the Southeastern United States from August to November 2016.

PARTICIPANTS

The final sample included 527 (56% response rate) employees.

MEASURES

Data were collected through an 87-item survey using previously validated scales that assessed occupational SB, perceived behavioral control, barrier self-efficacy, self-regulation strategies, organizational social norms, office environment, and worksite climate.

ANALYSIS

One-way analysis of variance analyses were used to determine differences in occupational SB by demographic factors. A multivariate regression model was used to determine significant ecological determinants of occupational SB.

RESULTS

Mean SB was 342.45 (standard deviation = 133.25) minutes. Significant differences in SB were found by gender, education, and employment classification. Barrier self-efficacy and workplace connectivity, which evaluates the spatial layout of the office setting that may impact mobility within the workplace, were significant predictors of SB in the multivariate model.

CONCLUSION

Results from this study provide new information regarding the potential impact of workplace barriers and connectivity on occupational SB. The findings from this study support the inclusion of intervention modalities to minimize workplace barriers and increase workplace connectivity to increase workplace mobility and decrease SB.

Comparison of accelerometer measured levels of physical activity and sedentary time between obese and non-obese children and adolescents: a systematic review

Background

Obesity has been hypothesized to be associated with reduced moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and increased sedentary time (ST). It is important to assess whether, and the extent to which, levels of MVPA and ST are suboptimal among children and adolescents with obesity. The primary objective of this study was to examine accelerometer-measured time spent in MVPA and ST of children and adolescents with obesity, compared with MVPA recommendations, and with non-obese peers.

Methods

An extensive search was carried out in Medline, Cochrane library, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL, from 2000 to 2015. Study selection and appraisal: studies with accelerometer-measured MVPA and/or ST (at least 3 days and 6 h/day) in free-living obese children and adolescents (0 to 19 years) were included. Study quality was assessed formally. Meta-analyses were planned for all outcomes but were precluded due to the high levels of heterogeneity across studies. Therefore, narrative syntheses were employed for all the outcomes.

Results

Out of 1503 records, 26 studies were eligible (n = 14,739 participants; n = 3523 with obesity); 6/26 studies involved children aged 0 to 9 years and 18/26 involved adolescents aged 10.1 to19 years. In the participants with obesity, the time spent in MVPA was consistently below the recommended 60 min/day and ST was generally high regardless of the participant’s age and gender. Comparison with controls suggested that the time spent in MVPA was significantly lower in children and adolescents with obesity, though differences were relatively small. Levels of MVPA in the obese and non-obese were consistently below recommendations. There were no marked differences in ST between obese and non-obese peers.

Conclusions

MVPA in children and adolescents with obesity tends to be well below international recommendations. Substantial effort is likely to be required to achieve the recommended levels of MVPA among obese individuals in obesity treatment interventions.

This systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO (International Database of Prospective Register Systematic Reviews; registration number CRD42015026882).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12887-018-1031-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Individual and environmental correlates of objectively measured sedentary time in Dutch and Belgian adults

As the detrimental health effects of sedentary behaviour are well established, insight into the individual and environmental factors that influence adults’ sedentary behaviour is needed. Most studies to date rely on self-reported measures of sedentary time. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to examine individual and environmental correlates of objectively measured sedentary time in Dutch and Belgian adults. Between March and August 2014, Belgian (n = 133) and Dutch (n = 223) adults, recruited as sub-sample of the SPOTLIGHT survey, wore an ActiGraph accelerometer to provide objectively measured sedentary and moderate to vigorous physical activity time. Participants completed a questionnaire assessing sociodemographic (country of residence, age, gender and educational level), lifestyle (sleep, smoking, sugar-containing beverage consumption, alcohol intake), health (body mass index, self-rated health), work (employment status and type of work), happiness, physical environmental (owning a car, number of screens, socioeconomic status and residential density) and social environmental factors (social network, social cohesion). Univariate and multivariable regression analyses showed that Belgian participants had a lower odds of being sedentary for at least 9 hours per day compared to Dutch participants. Women, older participants and those meeting the WHO recommendation for physical activity were also less likely to sit for 9 hours or more per day. Participants doing (heavy) manual work or being in education, homemaker, unemployed had lower odds of being sedentary for at least 9 hours per day compared to participants with a sitting job. Those with a higher self-reported social network also had lower odds for sedentary time. No associations between physical and other social environmental characteristics and sedentary time were found. Our findings add to the growing evidence of factors associated with prolonged sedentary time in adults. These findings may be used to inform the development of strategies and interventions aimed at reducing sedentary time, and to identify high risk groups.

Feasibility of a real-time self-monitoring device for sitting less and moving more: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Time spent inactive and sedentary are both associated with poor health. Self-monitoring of walking, using pedometers for real-time feedback, is effective at increasing physical activity. This study evaluated the feasibility of a new pocket-worn sedentary time and physical activity real-time self-monitoring device (SitFIT).

METHODS

Forty sedentary men were equally randomised into two intervention groups. For 4 weeks, one group received a SitFIT providing feedback on steps and time spent sedentary (lying/sitting); the other group received a SitFIT providing feedback on steps and time spent upright (standing/stepping). Change in sedentary time, standing time, stepping time and step count was assessed using activPAL monitors at baseline, 4-week follow-up (T1) and 12-week (T2) follow-up. Semistructured interviews were conducted after 4 and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

The SitFIT was reported as acceptable and usable and seen as a motivating tool to reduce sedentary time by both groups. On average, participants reduced their sedentary time by 7.8 minutes/day (95% CI -55.4 to 39.7) (T1) and by 8.2 minutes/day (95% CI -60.1 to 44.3) (T2). They increased standing time by 23.2 minutes/day (95% CI 4.0 to 42.5) (T1) and 16.2 minutes/day (95% CI -13.9 to 46.2) (T2). Stepping time was increased by 8.5 minutes/day (95% CI 0.9 to 16.0) (T1) and 9.0 minutes/day (95% CI 0.5 to 17.5) (T2). There were no between-group differences at either follow-up time points.

CONCLUSION

The SitFIT was perceived as a useful tool for self-monitoring of sedentary time. It has potential as a real-time self-monitoring device to reduce sedentary and increase upright time.

The Influence of Neighbourhoods and the Social Environment on Sedentary Behaviour in Older Adults in Three Prospective Cohorts

Sedentary behaviour is an emerging risk factor for poor health. This study aimed to identify ecological determinants of sedentary behaviour, for which evidence is currently scarce. The study participants were community dwelling adults from, respectively, the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936 (n = 271, mean age 79) and the 1930s (n = 119, mean age 83) and 1950s (n = 310, mean age 64) cohorts of the West of Scotland Twenty-07 study. The outcome measure, percentage of waking time spent sedentary (sedentary time), was measured using an activPAL activity monitor worn continuously for seven days. Potential determinants included objective and subjective neighbourhood measures such as natural space, crime, social cohesion and fear of crime. Other determinants included measures of social participation such as social support, social group membership and providing care. Results from multivariable regression analyses indicated that providing care was associated with reduced sedentary time in retired participants in all cohorts. Fear of crime and perceived absence of services were associated with increased sedentary time for retired 1950s cohort members. Higher crime rates were associated with increased sedentary time in all cohorts but this was not significant after adjustment for socio-demographic characteristics. Most other neighbourhood and social participation measures showed no association with sedentary time.

Sedentary behavior: Different types of operationalization influence outcome measures

INTRODUCTION

Sedentary behavior (SB) influences health status independently of physical activity. The formal definition of SB is: "any waking behavior characterized by an energy expenditure ≤1.5 METs while in a sitting or reclining posture". However, measuring SB mostly does not include both the intensity and postural component. The aim of this study was to quantify the effect of type of operationalization of SB on total sedentary time and the pattern of SB.

METHODS

53 healthy subjects were measured 24h with a multi-sensor activity monitor that provides a valid one-second detection of body postures and movements and a calculated intensity measure. The SB outcome measures were: total sedentary time; number of sedentary bouts; mean bout length; fragmentation; and W-index. All outcomes were calculated for three types of operationalization of SB: 1) waking time in lying and sitting posture and below the sedentary intensity threshold (<0.016g comparable with Actigraph <150 counts, COMBI); 2) waking time in lying and sitting posture (POST); 3) waking time below the sedentary intensity threshold (<0.016g, INT). Outcome measures based on these three operationalizations were compared with repeated measures ANOVA.

RESULTS

Total sedentary time was significantly different (p<0.001) between all three conditions: 505.8 (113.85)min (COMBI), 593.2 (112.09)min (POST), and 565.5 (108.54)min (INT). Significant differences were also found for other outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that type of operationalization significantly affects SB outcome measures. Therefore, if SB is defined according to the formal definition, measurements must include both the intensity and postural component.

Is self-reporting workplace activity worthwhile? Validity and reliability of occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire in desk-based workers

Background

With the advent of workplace health and wellbeing programs designed to address prolonged occupational sitting, tools to measure behaviour change within this environment should derive from empirical evidence. In this study we measured aspects of validity and reliability for the Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire that asks employees to recount the percentage of work time they spend in the seated, standing, and walking postures during a typical workday.

Methods

Three separate cohort samples (N = 236) were drawn from a population of government desk-based employees across several departmental agencies. These volunteers were part of a larger state-wide intervention study. Workplace sitting and physical activity behaviour was measured both subjectively against the International Physical Activity Questionnaire, and objectively against ActivPal accelerometers before the intervention began. Criterion validity and concurrent validity for each of the three posture categories were assessed using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients, and a bias comparison with 95 % limits of agreement. Test-retest reliability of the survey was reported with intraclass correlation coefficients.

Results

Criterion validity for this survey was strong for sitting and standing estimates, but weak for walking. Participants significantly overestimated the amount of walking they did at work. Concurrent validity was moderate for sitting and standing, but low for walking. Test-retest reliability of this survey proved to be questionable for our sample.

Conclusions

Based on our findings we must caution occupational health and safety professionals about the use of employee self-report data to estimate workplace physical activity. While the survey produced accurate measurements for time spent sitting at work it was more difficult for employees to estimate their workplace physical activity.

The Healthy Primary School of the Future: study protocol of a quasi-experimental study

BACKGROUND

Unhealthy lifestyles in early childhood are a major global health challenge. These lifestyles often persist from generation to generation and contribute to a vicious cycle of health-related and social problems. This design article presents a study evaluating the effects of two novel healthy school interventions. The main outcome measure will be changes in children's body mass index (BMI). In addition, lifestyle behaviours, academic achievement, child well-being, socio-economic differences, and societal costs will be examined.

METHODS

In close collaboration with various stakeholders, a quasi-experimental study was developed, for which children of four intervention schools (n = 1200) in the southern part of the Netherlands are compared with children of four control schools (n = 1200) in the same region. The interventions started in November 2015. In two of the four intervention schools, a whole-school approach named 'The Healthy Primary School of the Future', is implemented with the aim of improving physical activity and dietary behaviour. For this intervention, pupils are offered an extended curriculum, including a healthy lunch, more physical exercises, and social and educational activities, next to the regular school curriculum. In the two other intervention schools, a physical-activity school approach called 'The Physical Activity School', is implemented, which is essentially similar to the other intervention, except that no lunch is provided. The interventions proceed during a period of 4 years. Apart from the effectiveness of both interventions, the process, the cost-effectiveness, and the expected legal implications are studied. Data collection is conducted within the school system. The baseline measurements started in September 2015 and yearly follow-up measurements are taking place until 2019.

DISCUSSION

A whole-school approach is a new concept in the Netherlands. Due to its innovative, multifaceted nature and sound scientific foundation, these integrated programmes have the potential to form a template for primary schools worldwide. The effects of this approach may extend further than the outcomes associated with well-being and academic achievement, potentially impacting legal and cultural aspects in our society.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study protocol was registered in the database ClinicalTrials.gov on 14-06-2016 with the reference number NCT02800616 .

More standing and just as productive: Effects of a sit-stand desk intervention on call center workers' sitting, standing, and productivity at work in the Opt to Stand pilot study

This study evaluated the effects of sit-stand desks on workers' objectively and subjectively assessed sitting, physical activity, and productivity. This quasi-experimental study involved one intervention group (n = 16) and one comparison group (n = 15). Participants were call center employees from two job-matched teams at a large telecommunications company in Sydney, Australia (45% female, 33 ± 11 years old). Intervention participants received a sit-stand desk, brief training, and daily e-mail reminders to stand up more frequently for the first 2 weeks post-installation. Control participants carried out their usual work duties at seated desks. Primary outcomes were workday sitting and physical activity assessed using ActivPAL or ActiGraph devices and self-report questionnaires. Productivity outcomes were company-specific objective metrics (e.g., hold time, talking time, absenteeism) and subjective measures. Measurements were taken at baseline, 1, 4, and 19 weeks post-installation. Intervention participants increased standing time after 1 week (+ 73 min/workday (95% CI: 22, 123)) and 4 weeks (+ 96 min/workday (95% CI: 41, 150)) post-intervention, while control group showed no changes. Between-group differences in standing time at one and 4 weeks were + 78 (95% CI: 9, 147) and + 95 min/workday (95% CI: 15, 174), respectively. Sitting time in the intervention group changed by − 64 (95% CI: − 125, − 2), − 76 (95% CI: − 142, − 11), and − 100 min/workday (95% CI: − 172, − 29) at 1, 4, and 19 weeks post-installation, respectively, while the control group showed no changes. No changes were observed in productivity outcomes from baseline to follow-up in either group. Sit-stand desks can increase standing time at work in call center workers without reducing productivity.

•

Few workplace sitting interventions have involved objective productivity outcomes.

•

This sit-stand desk intervention increased standing time in call center workers (73–90 min/workday).

•

Sitting time decreased in the intervention group (64–100 min/workday).

•

Using sit-stand desks at work did not change call center workers’ productivity (e.g., talking time, hold time).