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

2020 ◽  
Vol 84 ◽  
pp. 103027 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lidewij R. Renaud ◽  
Judith G.M. Jelsma ◽  
Maaike A. Huysmans ◽  
Femke van Nassau ◽  
Jeroen Lakerveld ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Office Workers ◽  
Sitting Time ◽  
Dynamic Work ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Work Intervention ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Temporal features of sitting, standing and stepping changes in a cluster-randomised controlled trial of a workplace sitting-reduction intervention

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha K. Stephens ◽  
Elisabeth A. H. Winkler ◽  
Elizabeth G. Eakin ◽  
Bronwyn K. Clark ◽  
Neville Owen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Work Hours ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Sitting Time ◽  
Work Time ◽  
Prolonged Sitting ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background There is now a body of evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce workplace sitting time. However, there has been limited reporting of how such interventions may impact behaviour both during and outside of work. Sitting, standing and stepping changes following a workplace intervention were examined across five timeframes (work time on work days; non-work time on work days; work days; non-work days; overall (i.e. work and non-work time on all days)), and the relationships between changes during and outside of work was assessed. Methods The cluster-randomised controlled trial, ‘Stand Up Victoria’, delivered a multi-component workplace-delivered intervention that successfully reduced workplace and overall sitting time (relative to controls). Separately, over the five timeframes, changes in device (activPAL3)-assessed outcomes — sitting; prolonged sitting (≥30 min bouts); standing; and, stepping — were compared between intervention (n = 114) and controls (n = 84), along with the time-course of sitting changes during work hours, using mixed models. The potential relationships of changes during work with changes outside of work were examined using compositional data analysis. Results On workdays, intervention participants significantly (p < 0.05) improved their activity profile relative to controls, with reduced sitting (− 117 min/8-h workday, 95% CI: − 141, − 93) and prolonged sitting (− 77 min/8 h workday, 95% CI: − 101, − 52); increased standing (114 min/8 h workday, 95% CI: 92, 136) and maintenance of stepping (3 min/8 h workday, 95% CI: − 7, 11, p = 0.576). Effects were nearly identical for time at work; similar but slightly weaker for overall; and, small and non-significant outside of work on workdays and non-work days. Improvements occurred at all times, but not equally, during work hours (p < 0.001). Correlations between changes during and outside of work on workdays were very weak in both the intervention group (r = − 0.07) and controls (r = − 0.09). Conclusions Sitting time was reduced almost exclusively during work hours (via replacement with standing), with reductions evident during all working hours, to varying degrees. There was no evidence of compensation, with minimal change in activity outside of work, in response to changes in activity at work. Future interventions may benefit from exploring how best to elicit change throughout the whole day, and across work and non-work domains. Trial registration This trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials register (ACTRN12611000742976) on 15 July 2011

scholarly journals Sit–stand desks to reduce sedentary behaviour in 9- to 10-year-olds: the Stand Out in Class pilot cluster RCT

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. 1-126
Author(s):  
Stacy A Clemes ◽  
Daniel D Bingham ◽  
Natalie Pearson ◽  
Yu-Ling Chen ◽  
Charlotte Edwardson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Public Health Research ◽  
Sitting Time ◽  
Definitive Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background Sedentary behaviour (sitting) is a highly prevalent negative health behaviour, with individuals of all ages exposed to environments that promote prolonged sitting. The school classroom represents an ideal setting for environmental change through the provision of sit–stand desks. Objectives The aim of this study was to undertake a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of the introduction of sit–stand desks in primary school classrooms, to inform a definitive trial. Objectives included providing information on school and participant recruitment and retention, acceptability of the intervention, and outcome measures. A preliminary estimate of the intervention’s effectiveness on the proposed primary outcome (change in weekday sitting time) for inclusion in a definitive trial was calculated, along with a preliminary assessment of potential cost-effectiveness. A full process evaluation was also undertaken. Design A two-armed pilot cluster randomised controlled trial with economic and qualitative evaluations. Schools were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to the intervention (n = 4) or control (n = 4) trial arms. Setting Primary schools in Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK. Participants Children in Year 5 (i.e. aged 9–10 years). Intervention Six sit–stand desks replaced three standard desks (sitting six children) in the intervention classrooms for 4.5 months. Teachers were encouraged to ensure that all pupils were exposed to the sit–stand desks for at least 1 hour per day, on average, using a rotation system. Schools assigned to the control arm continued with their usual practice. Main outcome measures Trial feasibility outcomes included school and participant recruitment and attrition, acceptability of the intervention, and acceptability of and compliance with the proposed outcome measures [including weekday sitting measured using activPAL™ (PAL Technologies Ltd, Glasgow, UK) accelerometers, physical activity, adiposity, blood pressure, cognitive function, musculoskeletal comfort, academic progress, engagement and behaviour]. Results Thirty-three per cent of schools approached and 75% (n = 176) of eligible children took part. At the 7-month follow-up, retention rates were 100% for schools and 97% for children. Outcome measure completion rates ranged from 63% to 97%. A preliminary estimate of intervention effectiveness, from a weighted linear regression model (adjusting for baseline sitting time and wear time) revealed a mean difference in change in sitting of –30.6 minutes per day (95% confidence interval –56.42 to –4.84 minutes per day) between the intervention and control trial arms. The process evaluation revealed that the intervention, recruitment and evaluation procedures were acceptable to teachers and children, with the exception of minor issues around activPAL attachment. A preliminary within-trial economic analysis revealed no difference between intervention and control trial arms in health and education resource use or outcomes. Long-term modelling estimated an unadjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Stand Out in Class of £78,986 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Conclusion This study has provided evidence of the acceptability and feasibility of the Stand Out in Class intervention and evaluation methods. Preliminary evidence suggests that the intervention may have a positive direction of effect on weekday sitting time, which warrants testing in a full cluster randomised controlled trial. Lessons learnt from this trial will inform the planning of a definitive trial. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12915848. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 8, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals The effectiveness of multi-component interventions targeting physical activity or sedentary behaviour amongst office workers: a 3-arm cluster randomised controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla F. J. Nooijen ◽  
Victoria Blom ◽  
Örjan Ekblom ◽  
Emerald G. Heiland ◽  
Lisa-Marie Larisch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Activity Level ◽  
Office Workers ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background: Interventions to increase physical activity or reduce sedentary behaviour within the workplace setting have shown mixed effects. This cluster randomised controlled trial assessed whether multi-component interventions, focusing on changes at the individual, environmental, and organisational levels, either increased physical activity or reduced sedentary behaviour, compared to a passive control group.Methods: Teams of office-workers from two companies participated in two interventions (iPA: targeting physical activity; iSED: targeting sedentary behaviour), or a waiting list control group. Exclusion criteria was a very high physical activity level. Randomisation was done on a cluster level, and groups were randomly allocated (1:1) with stratification for company and cluster size Personnel involved in data collection and processing were blinded for group allocation. Both interventions included five sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy counselling for 6-months. iPA included counselling focused on physical activity, access to a gym, and encouragement to exercise and go for lunch walks. iSED included counselling on sedentary behaviour and encouragement to reduce sitting and increase engagement in standing- and walking-meetings. At baseline and the 6-month mark accelerometers were worn on the hip and thigh for 7 days. The primary outcomes were group differences in time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (%MVPA) and in sedentary behaviour (%), analysed for those with complete data using Bayesian multilevel modelling.Results: 263 office-workers (73% women, mean age 42±9 years, education 15±2 years) in 23 cluster teams were randomised (iPA n=84, 8 clusters; iSED n=87, 7 clusters; C n=92, 7 clusters). No significant group differences (posterior mean ratios: 95% credible interval) were found after the intervention for %MVPA or for %Sedentary. %MVPA: iPA vs C (0·04: -0·80 – 0·82); iSED vs C (0·47: -0·41 – 1·32); iPA vs iSED (0·43: -0·42 – 1·27). %Sedentary: iPA vs C (1·16: -1·66 – 4·02); iSED vs C (-0·44: -3·50 – 2·64); iPA vs iSED (-1·60: -4·72 – 1·47).Conclusions: The multi-component interventions focusing on either physical activity or sedentary behaviour were unsuccessful at increasing device-measured physical activity or reducing sedentary behaviour compared to control.Trial registration: ISRCTN92968402

scholarly journals Reducing sitting at work: process evaluation of the SMArT Work (Stand More AT Work) cluster randomised controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart JH Biddle ◽  
Sophie E O'Connell ◽  
Melanie Davies ◽  
David Dunstan ◽  
Charlotte Edwardson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Sitting Time ◽  
Questionnaire Data ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Office based workers accumulate high amounts of sitting time. SMArT (Stand More AT) Work aimed to reduce occupational sitting time and a cluster randomised controlled trial demonstrated it was successful in achieving this aim. The purpose of this paper is to present the process evaluation of the SMArT Work intervention. Methods Questionnaire data were collected from intervention participants at 6 (n=58) and 12 months (n=55). Questionnaires sought feedback on the different components of the intervention and experiences of evaluation measures. Control participants (n=37) were asked about the impact of the study on their behaviour and any lifestyle changes made during the study. Participants from both arms were invited to focus groups to gain a deeper understanding of their experiences upon completion of 12 month follow up. Results Focus group and questionnaire data showed a positive attitude towards the height-adjustable workstation with a high proportion of participants using it every day (62%). Most participants (92%) felt the education seminar increased their awareness of the health consequences of too much sitting and motivated them to change to their behaviour. Receiving feedback on their sitting time and support from the research team also encouraged behaviour change. The DARMA cushion and action planning/goal setting diary were seen to be less helpful for behaviour change. Benefits experienced included fewer aches and pains, improved cognitive functioning, increased productivity, more energy, and positive feelings about general health. Conclusions Key elements of the programme identified as facilitating behaviour change were: the educational seminar, the height-adjustable workstation, behavioural feedback and regular contact with research staff.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document