BackgroundOffice workers spend a large proportion of their working hours sitting. This may contribute to an increased risk of chronic disease and premature mortality. While there is growing interest in workplace interventions targeting prolonged sitting, few qualitative studies have explored workers’ perceptions of reducing occupational sitting outside of an intervention context. This study explored barriers to reducing office workplace sitting, and the feasibility and acceptability of strategies targeting prolonged sitting in this context.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of 20 office workers (50 % women), including employees and managers, in Melbourne, Australia. The three organisations (two large, and one small organisation) were from retail, health and IT industries and had not implemented any formalised approaches to sitting reduction. Questions covered barriers to reducing sitting, the feasibility of potential strategies aimed at reducing sitting, and perceived effects on productivity. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsParticipants reported spending most (median: 7.2 h) of their working hours sitting. The nature of computer-based work and exposure to furniture designed for a seated posture were considered to be the main factors influencing sitting time. Low cost strategies, such as standing meetings and in-person communication, were identified as feasible ways to reduce sitting time and were also perceived to have potential productivity benefits. However, social norms around appropriate workplace behaviour and workload pressures were perceived to be barriers to uptake of these strategies. The cost implications of height-adjustable workstations influenced perceptions of feasibility. Managers noted the need for an evidence-based business case supporting action on prolonged sitting, particularly in the context of limited resources and competing workplace health priorities.ConclusionsWhile a number of low-cost approaches to reduce workplace sitting are perceived to be feasible and acceptable in the office workplace, factors such as work demands and the organisational social context may still act as barriers to greater uptake. Building a supportive organisational culture and raising awareness of the adverse health effects of prolonged sitting may be important for improving individual-level and organisational-level motivation for change.

WATs are perceived as useful and acceptable interventions by postmenopausal breast cancer survivors. Effective WAT interventions may benefit from taking advantage of the simple features of the trackers paired with other behavioural change techniques, such as specialist counselling, doctor monitoring and peer support, along with simple manual instructions.

Sedentary behavior is highly prevalent in office-based workplaces; however, few studies have assessed the attributes associated with this health risk factor in the workplace setting. This study aimed to identify the correlates of office workers' objectively-assessed total and prolonged (≥ 30 min bouts) workplace sitting time. Participants were 231 Australian office workers recruited from 14 sites of a single government employer in 2012–13. Potential socio-demographic, work-related, health-related and cognitive-social correlates were measured through a self-administered survey and anthropometric measurements. Associations with total and prolonged workplace sitting time (measured with the activPAL3) were tested using linear mixed models. Worksites varied significantly in total workplace sitting time (overall mean [SD]: 79% [10%] of work hours) and prolonged workplace sitting time (42% [19%]), after adjusting for socio-demographic and work-related characteristics. Organisational tenure of 3–5 years (compared to tenure > 5 years) was associated with more time spent in total and prolonged workplace sitting time, while having a BMI categorised as obese (compared to a healthy BMI) was associated with less time spent in total and prolonged workplace sitting time. Significant variations in sitting time were observed across different worksites of the same employer and the variation remained after adjusting for individual-level factors. Only BMI and organisational tenure were identified as correlates of total and prolonged workplace sitting time. Additional studies are needed to confirm the present findings across diverse organisations and occupations.

No abstract

Context/purposeObservational and acute laboratory intervention research has shown that excessive sedentary time is associated adversely with cardiometabolic biomarkers. This systematic review with meta-analyses synthesises results from free living interventions targeting reductions in sedentary behaviour alone or combined with increases in physical activity.MethodsSix electronic databases were searched up to August 2019 for sedentary behaviour interventions in adults lasting for ≥7 days publishing cardiometabolic biomarker outcomes covering body anthropometry, blood pressure, glucose and lipid metabolism, and inflammation (54 studies). The pooled effectiveness of intervention net of control on 15 biomarker outcomes was evaluated using random effects meta-analyses in the studies with control groups not providing other relevant interventions (33 studies; 6–25 interventions analysed).ResultsInterventions between 2 weeks and <6 months in non-clinical populations from North America, Europe and Australia comprised much of the evidence base. Pooled effects revealed small, significant (p<0.05) beneficial effects on weight (≈ −0.6 kg), waist circumference (≈ −0.7 cm), percentage body fat (≈ −0.3 %), systolic blood pressure (≈ −1.1 mm Hg), insulin (≈ −1.4 pM) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (≈ 0.04 mM). Pooled effects on the other biomarkers (p>0.05) were also small, and beneficial in direction except for fat-free mass (≈ 0.0 kg). Heterogeneity ranged widely (I2=0.0–72.9).ConclusionsOur review of interventions targeting sedentary behaviour reductions alone, or combined with increases in physical activity, found evidence of effectiveness for improving some cardiometabolic risk biomarkers to a small degree. There was insufficient evidence to evaluate inflammation or vascular function. Key limitations to the underlying evidence base include a paucity of high-quality studies, interventions lasting for ≥12 months, sensitive biomarkers and clinical study populations (eg, type 2 diabetes).PROSPERO trial registration numberCRD42016041742

BackgroundOffice workers spend much of their time sitting, which is now understood to be a risk factor for several chronic diseases. This qualitative study examined participants’ perspectives following their involvement in a cluster randomised controlled trial of a multi-component intervention targeting prolonged workplace sitting (Stand Up Victoria). The intervention incorporated a sit-stand workstation, individual health coaching and organisational support strategies. The aim of the study was to explore the acceptability of the intervention, barriers and facilitators to reducing workplace sitting, and perceived effects of the intervention on workplace culture, productivity and health-related outcomes.MethodsSemi-structured interviews (n = 21 participants) and two focus groups (n = 7) were conducted with intervention participants at the conclusion of the 12 month trial and thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Questions covered intervention acceptability, overall impact, barriers and facilitators to reducing workplace sitting, and perceived impact on productivity and workplace culture.ResultsOverall, participants had positive intervention experiences, perceiving that reductions in workplace sitting were associated with improved health and well-being with limited negative impact on work performance. While sit-stand workstations appeared to be the primary drivers of change, workstation design and limited suitability of standing for some job tasks and situations were perceived as barriers to their use. Social support from team leaders and other participants was perceived to facilitate behavioural changes and a shift in norms towards increased acceptance of standing in the workplace.ConclusionsMulti-component interventions to reduce workplace sitting, incorporating sit-stand workstations, are acceptable and feasible; however, supportive social and environmental conditions are required to support participant engagement. Best practice approaches to reduce workplace sitting should address the multiple levels of influence on behaviour, including factors that may act as barriers to behavioural change.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12966-017-0530-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives This study aimed to assess the economic credentials of a workplace-delivered intervention to reduce sitting time among desk-based workers. Methods We performed within-trial cost-efficacy analysis and long-term cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and recruited 231 desk-based workers, aged 24-65 years, across 14 worksites of one organization. Multicomponent workplace-delivered intervention was compared to usual practice. Main outcome measures including total device-measured workplace sitting time, body mass index (BMI), self-reported health-related quality of life (Assessment of Quality of Life-8D, AQoL-8D), and absenteeism measured at 12 months. Results Compared to usual practice, the intervention was associated with greater cost (AU$431/person), benefits in terms of reduced workplace sitting time [-46.8 minutes/8-hour workday, 95% confidence interval (CI): -69.9- -23.7] and increased workplace standing time (42.2 minutes/8-hour workday, 95% CI 23.8-60.6). However, there were no significant benefits for BMI [0.148 kg/m (95% CI-1.407-1.703)], QoL-8D [-0.006 (95% CI -0.074-0.063)] and absenteeism [2.12 days (95% CI -2.01-6.26)]. The incremental cost-efficacy ratios (ICER) ranged from AU$9.94 cost/minute reduction in workplace sitting time to AU$13.37/minute reduction in overall sitting time. CEA showed the intervention contributed to higher life year (LY) gains [0.01 (95% CI 0.009-0.011)], higher health-adjusted life year (HALY) gains [0.012 (95% CI 0.0105 - 0.0135)], and higher net costs [AU$344 (95% CI $331-358)], with corresponding ICER of AU$34 443/LY and AU$28 703/HALY if the intervention effects were to be sustained for five-years. CEA results were sensitive to assumptions surrounding intervention-effect decay rate and discount rate. Conclusions The intervention was cost-effective over the lifetime of the cohort when scaled up to the national workforce and provides important.

In developed and developing countries, social, economic, and environmental transitions have led to physical inactivity and large amounts of time spent sitting. Research is now unraveling the adverse public health consequences of too much sitting. We describe improvements in device-based measurement that are providing new insights into sedentary behavior and health. We consider the implications of research linking evidence from epidemiology and behavioral science with mechanistic insights into the underlying biology of sitting time. Such evidence has led to new sedentary behavior guidelines and initiatives. We highlight ways that this emerging knowledge base can inform public health strategy: First, we consider epidemiologic and experimental evidence on the health consequences of sedentary behavior; second, we describe solutions-focused research from initiatives in workplaces and schools. To inform a broad public health strategy, researchers need to pursue evidence-informed collaborations with occupational health, education, and other sectors.