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 one of two interventions (iPA: targeting physical activity; or iSED: targeting sedentary behaviour), or wait-list control group (C). Exclusion criterion was very high physical activity level (MVPA ≥30 min/day in ≥10 min bouts every day). Randomisation occurred at the level of workplace cluster, and groups were randomly allocated (1:1) with stratification for company and cluster size. Personnel involved in data collection and processing were blinded to 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 intensity physical activity (%MVPA) and in sedentary behaviour (%), analysed using Bayesian multilevel modelling for those with complete data.

Intervention studies aiming at changing movement behavior have usually not accounted for the compositional nature of time-use data. Compositional data analysis (CoDA) has been suggested as a useful strategy for analyzing such data. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of two multi-component interventions on 24-h movement behavior (using CoDA) and on cardiorespiratory fitness among office workers; one focusing on reducing sedentariness and the other on increasing physical activity. Office workers (n = 263) were cluster randomized into one of two 6-month intervention groups, or a control group. Time spent in sedentary behavior, light-intensity, moderate and vigorous physical activity, and time in bed were assessed using accelerometers and diaries, both for 24 h in total, and for work and leisure time separately. Cardiorespiratory fitness was estimated using a sub-maximal cycle ergometer test. Intervention effects were analyzed using linear mixed models. No intervention effects were found, either for 24-h behaviors in total, or for work and leisure time behaviors separately. Cardiorespiratory fitness did not change significantly. Despite a thorough analysis of 24-h behaviors using CoDA, no intervention effects were found, neither for behaviors in total, nor for work and leisure time behaviors separately. Cardiorespiratory fitness did not change significantly. Although the design of the multi-component interventions was based on theoretical frameworks, and included cognitive behavioral therapy counselling, which has been proven effective in other populations, issues related to implementation of and compliance with some intervention components may have led to the observed lack of intervention effect.

The associations between 24 h movement behavior, i.e., the way people distribute their time in different movement-related behaviors, on mental health are not well understood. This study applied a compositional data analysis approach to explore cross-sectional associations between device-measured moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA), light intensity physical activity (LIPA), sedentary behavior (SED), self-reported time in bed and mental health outcomes, i.e., depression or anxiety symptoms, burnout, mental wellbeing and stress, in office workers. ActiGraph accelerometers were worn for 24 h for at least 4 days to assess MVPA, LIPA, and SED. Sleep diaries were used in addition to identify time in bed. Analytic sample sizes for the different outcomes ranged from N = 345–370 participants. In this population of office workers with high levels of MVPA, the entire movement behavior composition was not associated to any of the mental health outcomes, but MVPA relative to all other behaviors was positively associated with mental wellbeing. This confirms the importance of MVPA for health relative to other movement-related behaviors.

The bi-directional, day-to-day associations between daytime physical activity and sedentary behavior, and nocturnal sleep, in office workers are unknown. This study investigated these associations and whether they varied by weekday or weekend day. Among 324 Swedish office workers (mean age 42.4 years; 33.3% men), moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and sedentary behaviors and sleep (total sleep time (TST) and sleep efficiency (SE)) were ascertained by using accelerometers (Actigraph GT3X) over 8 days. Multilevel linear mixed models were used to assess the bi-directional, day-to-day, within-person associations. Additional analyses stratified by weekend/weekday were performed. On average, participants spent 6% (57 min) of their day in MVPA and 59% (9.5 h) sedentary, and during the night, TST was 7 hours, and SE was 91%. More daytime sedentary behavior was associated with less TST that night, and reciprocally, more TST at night was associated with less sedentary behavior on the following weekday. Greater TST during the night was also associated with less MVPA the next day, only on weekdays. However, daytime MVPA was not associated with TST that night. Higher nighttime SE was associated with greater time spent sedentary and in MVPA on the following day, regardless if weekday or weekend day. Sleep may be more crucial for being physically active the following day than vice versa, especially on weekdays. Nevertheless, sedentary behavior’s relation with sleep time may be bi-directional. Office workers may struggle with balancing sleep and physical activity time.

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