Background Treadmill workstations that enable office workers to walk on a treadmill while working at their computers might increase physical activity in offices, but long-term effects are unknown. We therefore investigated whether treadmill workstations in offices increased daily walking time.Methods We did a randomised controlled trial of healthy office workers who were either overweight or obese. We recruited participants from 13 different companies, which comprised 17 offices, in Umeå, Sweden. We included people who were aged 40-67 years, had sedentary work tasks, and had a body-mass index (BMI) between 25 kg/m² and 40 kg/m². After the baseline measurement, we stratified participants by their BMI (25-30 kg/m² and >30 to 40 kg/m²); subsequently, an external statistician randomly assigned these participants (1:1) to either the intervention group (who received treadmill workstations for optional use) or the control group (who continued to work at their sit-stand desks as usual). Participants in the intervention group received reminders in boosting emails sent out to them at four occasions during the study period. Researchers were masked to group assignment until after analysis of the primary outcome. After the baseline measurement, participants were not masked to group belongings. The primary outcome was total daily walking time at weekdays and weekends, measured at baseline, 2 months, 6 months, 10 months, and 13 months with the accelerometer activPAL (PAL Technologies, Glasgow, UK), which was worn on the thigh of participants for 24 h a day for 7 consecutive days. We used an intention-to-treat approach for our analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01997970, and is closed to new participants.Findings Between Nov 1, 2013, and June 30, 2014, a total of 80 participants were recruited and enrolled (n=40 in both the intervention and control groups). Daily walking time during total time awake at weekdays increased between baseline and 13 months by 18 min (95% CI 9 to 26) in the intervention group and 1 min (-7 to 9) in the control group (difference 22 min [95% CI 7 to 37], p interaction =0•00045); for weekend walking, the change from baseline to 13 months was 5 min (−8 to 18) in the intervention group and 8 min (−5 to 21) in the control group (difference -1 min [-19 to 17]; p interaction =0•00045). Neither measure met our predetermined primary outcome of 30 min difference in total walking time between the intervention and control group, so the primary outcome of the trial was not met. One adverse event was reported in a participant who accidently stepped on their Achilles tendon.Interpretation In a sedentary work environment, treadmill workstations result in a statistically significant but smallerthan-expected increase in daily walking time. Future studies need to investigate how increasing physical activity at work might have potentially compensatory effects on non-work activity.

Implementation of activity-based flex offices (AFOs) are becoming increasingly common. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of an AFO on perceived productivity, satisfaction, work environment and health. Questionnaire data from the longitudinal, quasi-experimental Active Office Design Study was used. The study evaluates a public organization relocating staff to either an AFO or to cell offices. Measures from baseline, 6 and 18 months after relocation, were analyzed. Employees in the AFO experienced a decreased productivity and satisfaction with the office design. Lack of privacy as well as increased noise disturbance, less satisfaction with sit comfort and work posture were reported. Employees in the AFO with work tasks requiring a high degree of concentration experienced lower productivity while those with a high proportion of teamwork rated productivity to be continually high. No significant group differences were found between the two office types in general health, cognitive stress, salutogenic health indicators or pain in the neck, shoulder or back. The study highlights the importance of taking work characteristics into account in the planning and implementation process of an AFO. Flexible and interactive tasks seem more appropriate in an AFO, whereas individual tasks demanding concentration seem less fit.

The aim of this study was to investigate facilitating and hindering factors when implementing a physical activity (PA)-promoting program among office workers moving to a flex office, by conducting a process evaluation. Additionally, we evaluated self-reported and perceived PA behaviors. With a mixed methods design, analyses were based upon data from interviews with 70 employees and repeated questionnaires from 152 employees. The PA-promoting program was fully implemented and supported by management. There was a strong health promoting culture, encouraging PA in the organization already at the start of the study. The lecture and the office design were rated as the most motivating program components. The use of stairs, breaks during meetings and social acceptance for standing and walking at work increased. Employees described a strive for variation, and how managers, the office environment, productivity and ergonomic aspects influenced sedentary behavior (SB) and PA. The need for the PA-promoting program was questioned, and the timing of the program was debated. To conclude, a strong organizational health culture combined with a facilitating physical environment can create sustainable positive PA behaviors in office settings. A thorough understanding of organizational needs and a participatory process are needed to tailor organizational interventions to decrease SB.

Time spent in sedentary behavior (SB) has increased during the last decades. Accurate assessments are of importance when studying health consequences of SB. This study aimed to assess concurrent validity between three different questions for self-reported sitting and thigh worn accelerometer data. In total, 86 participants wore the ActivPAL accelerometer during three separate weeks, assessing sitting time with different questions each week. The questions used were Katzmarzyk, GIH stationary single-item question (SED-GIH), and a modified version of the single-item from IPAQ short form. In total 64, 57, and 55 participants provided valid accelerometer and questionnaire data at each time-point, respectively, and were included for analysis. Spearman and Pearson correlation was used to assess the validity. The three questions, Katzmarzyk, SED-GIH, and a modified question from IPAQ all showed a weak non-significant correlation to ActivPAL with r-values of 0.26, 0.25, and 0.19 respectively. For Katzmarzyk and SED-GIH, 50% and 37% reported correctly, respectively. For the modified IPAQ, 53% over-reported and 47% under-reported their sitting time. In line with previous research, our study shows poor validity for self-reported sitting-time. For future research, the use of sensor-based data on SB are of high importance.

Studies using technical measurements of physical behavior show wide interindividual variations. This study aimed to explore underlying factors related to sitting, standing and walking among office workers. Cross-sectional data for background characteristics, work-related variables, and device-based measures for sitting, standing and walking were collected among office workers in either a cell office or a flex office with activity-based work. Data were analyzed by Factor Analysis of Mixed Data (FAMD) and multiple robust linear regression. The FAMD resulted in the combination of underlying factors describing six character types. The (1) harmonic and healthy, (2) disabled with poor health, (3) manager that spend a lot of time in meetings and has very high workload, (4) engaged with high workload, (5) employee with creative and computer intense work, with high workload and, (6) employee with high BMI with creative and collaborative work. Regression analysis showed that the character type that was “engaged with high workload” sat more and stood less, while the character type with ”high BMI and with creative and collaborative work” sat less. The results suggest that physical behavior among office workers is influenced by a complex combination of factors, which should be taken into account in the evaluation of future studies of larger cohorts.

No abstract

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, many white-collar workers were requested to exclusively work from home (WFH), which may have affected their sedentary behavior. In Sweden, having less severe restrictions than many other countries, workers were allowed to alternate between WFH and work at the office (WAO), so called hybrid work. Understanding how hybrid work influences total sedentary behavior and its temporal distribution is an important issue for future health promotion. This study aimed to investigate to what extent office workers changed their temporal pattern of sedentary behavior during days WFH compared to WAO, considering age and gender as potential moderators. Methods Data were collected from May to December 2020 in office workers (n = 199). Their mean age was 42 (SD 10) years and 55% were women. Physical behaviors were measured using a thigh-worn accelerometer (AxivityAX3) for seven consecutive days. A diary identified working hours, time-in-bed and days WFH or WAO. Time-use was classified as short (0-5 min), moderate (5-30 min) and long bouts (>30 min) of sedentary behavior (SB), non-SB, and time-in-bed during workdays (WAO and WFH) and non-workdays. We used Compositional data analysis to express data as 24-hour compositions and linear mixed models to estimate difference in 24-hour compositions between day types (within worker), including age and gender as covariates and moderators. Results We found that workdays (WFH and WAO) were associated with proportionally less time-in-bed relative to time awake, more time SB relative to non-SB, and more time in longer relative to shorter sedentary bouts, compared to non-workdays (all p > 0.001). WFH was associated with more time-in-bed relative to awake and more SB relative to non-SB than WAO (p > 0.05), but the differences for sedentary bouts were not significant. Younger workers and women had more SB, and women accumulated more time than men in longer relative to shorter bouts of SB. However, age and gender did not affect differences between day types. Conclusions Working from home influenced 24-hour time-use in office workers by increasing sedentary behavior in total, while its temporal pattern was unchanged. Results contribute to evidence that can support organizational policies on hybrid work.

BackgroundOccupational cold exposure is common in Sweden but potential impacts on musculoskeletal disorders have not been thoroughly investigated. The primary aim of this study was to determine the associations between occupational contact and ambient cooling in relation to pain in the upper extremity.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, a digital survey was conducted on a population-based sample of women and men between 24 and 76 years of age, living in northern Sweden. Occupational cold exposure, heavy manual handling, work with vibrating tools as well as the presence of upper extremity pain at different sites were subjectively reported. Associations between exposure and outcome were evaluated using multiple binary logistic regression.ResultsThe final study sample included 2,089 (54.4%) women and 1,754 men, with a mean age of 56 years. Hand pain was reported by 196 (5.2%), lower arm pain by 144 (3.8%), and upper arm pain by 451 (11.9%). Severe ambient cooling for more than half of the working time was statistically significantly associated with hand pain (OR: 2.30; 95% CI: 1.23–4.29) and upper arm pain (OR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.00–2.47) but not lower arm pain (OR: 1.87; 95% CI: 0.96–3.65) after adjusting for gender, age, body mass index, current daily smoking, heavy manual handling, and work with vibrating tools.ConclusionsOccupational cold exposure was statistically significantly associated with hand pain and upper arm pain. Therefore, occupational cold exposure should be recognized as a potential risk factor for musculoskeletal disorders in the upper extremity.