Few studies identified in this review considered the validity of phone-based assessment of physical activity. Those that did report on measurement properties found average-to-excellent levels of accuracy for different behaviors. The range of novel and engaging intervention strategies used by smartphones, and user perceptions on their usefulness and viability, highlights the potential such technology has for physical activity promotion. However, intervention effects reported in the extant literature are modest at best, and future studies need to utilize randomized controlled trial research designs, larger sample sizes, and longer study periods to better explore the physical activity measurement and intervention capabilities of smartphones.

PurposeEncouraging office workers to ‘sit less and move more’ encompasses two public health priorities. However, there is little evidence on the effectiveness of workplace interventions for reducing sitting, even less about the longer term effects of such interventions and still less on dual-focused interventions. This study assessed the short and mid-term impacts of a workplace web-based intervention (Walk@WorkSpain, W@WS; 2010-11) on self-reported sitting time, step counts and physical risk factors (waist circumference, BMI, blood pressure) for chronic disease.MethodsEmployees at six Spanish university campuses (n=264; 42±10 years; 171 female) were randomly assigned by worksite and campus to an Intervention (used W@WS; n=129; 87 female) or a Comparison group (maintained normal behavior; n=135; 84 female). This phased, 19-week program aimed to decrease occupational sitting time through increased incidental movement and short walks. A linear mixed model assessed changes in outcome measures between the baseline, ramping (8 weeks), maintenance (11 weeks) and follow-up (two months) phases for Intervention versus Comparison groups.ResultsA significant 2 (group) × 2 (program phases) interaction was found for self-reported occupational sitting (F[3]=7.97, p=0.046), daily step counts (F[3]=15.68, p=0.0013) and waist circumference (F[3]=11.67, p=0.0086). The Intervention group decreased minutes of daily occupational sitting while also increasing step counts from baseline (446±126; 8,862±2,475) through ramping (+425±120; 9,345±2,435), maintenance (+422±123; 9,638±3,131) and follow-up (+414±129; 9,786±3,205). In the Comparison group, compared to baseline (404±106), sitting time remained unchanged through ramping and maintenance, but decreased at follow-up (-388±120), while step counts diminished across all phases. The Intervention group significantly reduced waist circumference by 2.1cms from baseline to follow-up while the Comparison group reduced waist circumference by 1.3cms over the same period.ConclusionsW@WS is a feasible and effective evidence-based intervention that can be successfully deployed with sedentary employees to elicit sustained changes on “sitting less and moving more”.

BackgroundLittle is known about how sitting time, alone or in combination with markers of physical activity (PA), influences mental well-being and work productivity. Given the need to develop workplace PA interventions that target employees’ health related efficiency outcomes; this study examined the associations between self-reported sitting time, PA, mental well-being and work productivity in office employees.MethodsDescriptive cross-sectional study. Spanish university office employees (n = 557) completed a survey measuring socio-demographics, total and domain specific (work and travel) self-reported sitting time, PA (International Physical Activity Questionnaire short version), mental well-being (Warwick-Edinburg Mental Well-Being Scale) and work productivity (Work Limitations Questionnaire). Multivariate linear regression analyses determined associations between the main variables adjusted for gender, age, body mass index and occupation. PA levels (low, moderate and high) were introduced into the model to examine interactive associations.ResultsHigher volumes of PA were related to higher mental well-being, work productivity and spending less time sitting at work, throughout the working day and travelling during the week, including the weekends (p < 0.05). Greater levels of sitting during weekends was associated with lower mental well-being (p < 0.05). Similarly, more sitting while travelling at weekends was linked to lower work productivity (p < 0.05). In highly active employees, higher sitting times on work days and occupational sitting were associated with decreased mental well-being (p < 0.05). Higher sitting times while travelling on weekend days was also linked to lower work productivity in the highly active (p < 0.05). No significant associations were observed in low active employees.ConclusionsEmployees’ PA levels exerts different influences on the associations between sitting time, mental well-being and work productivity. The specific associations and the broad sweep of evidence in the current study suggest that workplace PA strategies to improve the mental well-being and productivity of all employees should focus on reducing sitting time alongside efforts to increase PA.

BackgroundLittle is known about the types of ‘sit less, move more’ strategies that appeal to office employees, or what factors influence their use. This study assessed the uptake of strategies in Spanish university office employees engaged in an intervention, and those factors that enabled or limited strategy uptake.MethodsThe study used a mixed method design. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with academics and administrators (n = 12; 44 ± 12 mean SD age; 6 women) at three points across the five-month intervention, and data used to identify factors that influenced the uptake of strategies. Employees who finished the intervention then completed a survey rating (n = 88; 42 ± 8 mean SD age; 51 women) the extent to which strategies were used [never (1) to usually (4)]; additional survey items (generated from interviewee data) rated the impact of factors that enabled or limited strategy uptake [no influence (1) to very strong influence (4)]. Survey score distributions and averages were calculated and findings triangulated with interview data.ResultsRelative to baseline, 67% of the sample increased step counts post intervention (n = 59); 60% decreased occupational sitting (n = 53). ‘Active work tasks’ and ‘increases in walking intensity’ were the strategies most frequently used by employees (89% and 94% sometimes or usually utilised these strategies); ‘walk-talk meetings’ and ‘lunchtime walking groups’ were the least used (80% and 96% hardly ever or never utilised these strategies). ‘Sitting time and step count logging’ was the most important enabler of behaviour change (mean survey score of 3.1 ± 0.8); interviewees highlighted the motivational value of being able to view logged data through visual graphics in a dedicated website, and gain feedback on progress against set goals. ‘Screen based work’ (mean survey score of 3.2 ± 0.8) was the most significant barrier limiting the uptake of strategies. Inherent time pressures and cultural norms that dictated sedentary work practices limited the adoption of ‘walk-talk meetings’ and ‘lunch time walking groups’.ConclusionsThe findings provide practical insights into which strategies and influences practitioners need to target to maximise the impact of ‘sit less, move more’ occupational intervention strategies.

BackgroundFew studies have examined the impact of ‘sit less, move more’ interventions on workplace performance. This study assessed the short and mid-term impacts of and patterns of change within, a 19-week workplace web-based intervention (Walk@WorkSpain; W@WS; 2010–11) on employees´ presenteeism, mental well-being and lost work performance.MethodsA site randomised control trial recruited employees at six Spanish university campuses (n = 264; 42 ± 10 years; 171 female), assigned by worksite and campus to an Intervention (IG; used W@WS; n = 129; 87 female) or an active Comparison group (A-CG; pedometer, paper diary and self-reported sitting time; n = 135; 84 female). A linear mixed model assessed changes between the baseline, ramping (8 weeks), maintenance (11 weeks) and follow-up (two months) phases for the IG versus A-CG on (i) % of lost work productivity (Work Limitations Questionnaire; WLQ); (ii) three scales for presenteeism (WLQ) assessing difficulty meeting scheduling demands (Time), performing cognitive and inter-personal tasks (Mental-Interpersonal) and decrements in meeting the quantity, quality and timeliness of completed work (Output); and (iii) mental well-being (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale). T-tests assessed differences between groups for changes on the main outcomes. In the IG, a multivariate logistic regression model identified patterns of response according to baseline socio-demographic variables, physical activity and sitting time.ResultsThere was a significant 2 (group) × 2 (program time points) interaction for the Time (F [3]=8.69, p = 0.005), Mental-Interpersonal (F [3]=10.01, p = 0.0185), Output scales for presenteeism (F [3]=8.56, p = 0.0357), and for % of lost work performance (F [3]=10.31, p = 0.0161). Presenteeism and lost performance rose significantly in both groups across all study time points; after baseline performance was consistently better in the IG than in the A-CG. Better performance was linked to employees being more active (Time, p = 0.041) and younger (Mental-interpersonal, p = 0.057; Output, p = 0.017). Higher total sitting time during nonworking days (Mental-interpersonal, p = 0.019) and lower sitting time during workdays (WLQ Index, p = 0.013) also improved performance.ConclusionVersus an active comparison condition, a ‘sit less, move more` workplace intervention effectively reduced an array of markers of lost workday productivity.Trial registration NCT02960750; Date of registration: 07/11/2016.