Health and productivity at work: which active workstation for which benefits: a systematic review

Abstract

In order to reduce sedentary behaviour at work, research has examined the effectiveness of active workstations. However, despite their relevance in replacing conventional desks, the comparison between types of active workstations and their respective benefits remains unclear. The purpose of this review article is thus to compare the benefits between standing, treadmill and cycling workstations. Search criteria explored Embase, PubMed and Web of Science databases. The review included studies concerning adults using at least two types of active workstations, evaluating biomechanical, physiological work performance and/or psychobiological outcomes. Twelve original articles were included. Treadmill workstations induced greater movement/activity and greater muscular activity in the upper limbs compared with standing workstations. Treadmill and cycling workstations resulted in elevated heart rate, decreased ambulatory blood pressure and increased energy expenditure during the workday compared with standing workstations. Treadmill workstations reduced fine motor skill function (ie, typing, mouse pointing and combined keyboard/mouse tasks) compared with cycling and standing workstations. Cycling workstations resulted in improved simple processing task speeds compared with standing and treadmill workstations. Treadmill and cycling workstations increased arousal and decreased boredom compared with standing workstations. The benefits associated with each type of active workstation (eg, standing, treadmill, cycling) may not be equivalent. Overall, cycling and treadmill workstations appear to provide greater short-term physiological changes than standing workstations that could potentially lead to better health. Cycling, treadmill and standing workstations appear to show short-term productivity benefits; however, treadmill workstations can reduce the performance of computer tasks.

Workshop Gesundheitsgefährdung durch langes Sitzen am Arbeitsplatz – Teil II Betriebliche Lösungsansätze

“…Sie sind bei der Entwicklung von Maßnahmen zu bedenken. Die Arbeitsleistung kann positiv verändert sein, möglicherweise gibt es aber auch Einschränkungen in bestimmten Bereichen [3]. Trotz vieler Forschungslücken bestand unter den an der Diskussion beteiligten Expert/innen ein Konsens jetzt zu handeln, d. h. geeignete Präventionsstrategien und -maßnahmen mit der besten verfügbaren Evidenz nach aktuellem Wissenstand auszuwählen und diese in den Betrieben zu entwickeln, erproben und zu evaluieren.…”

“…Im Folgenden werden die im Workshop von der Sportwissenschaftlerin Vera Schellewald und dem Arbeitswissenschaftler Rolf Ellegast aus der Perspektive des Forschungsinstituts IFA der gesetzlichen Unfallversicherungsträger präsentierten Erkenntnisse der Evaluation zu dynamischen Arbeitsstationen zusammengefasst. Diese Ergebnisse waren bisher nur z. T. in systematische Reviews zur Wirkung dynamischer Arbeitsplätze eingeflossen [3]. Zwei Beispiele zur Bewegungsanregung am Arbeitsplatz, das Konzept "Aktives Büro" im Hessischen Ministerium für Finanzen und die "Lohnende Pause" bei der Deutschen Rentenversicherung Bund, wurden von den jeweiligen Verantwortlichen für das betriebliche Gesundheitsmanagement in Vorträgen vorgestellt.…”

Does type of active workstation matter? A randomized comparison of cognitive and typing performance between rest, cycling, and treadmill active workstations

“…High responders lost 4 kg on average (SD = 4) after 12 months, suggesting there may be variability in weight loss among active workstation users [8]. Active workstations are also related to decreased total cholesterol, decreased blood glucose, decreased insulin levels, and lower blood pressure when compared to sedentary work time [5,7,10]. While there are clearly health benefits to active workstations, it is important to note some studies do not find significantly different health outcomes after active workstation interventions (e.g., systolic and diastolic blood pressure) and some studies suggest possible risks associated with the use of active workstations [e.g., musculoskeletal, leg/foot swelling] [7,9].…”

“…Most studies to date suggest no difference or small improvement in cognitive performance when comparing active workstations to control conditions. For example, multiple reviews suggest cognitive skills such as attention, processing speed, short-term memory, reasoning, and reading comprehension were similar when participants used an active workstation compared to a control condition [4][5][6]10]. The prevailing evidence across studies similarly shows a pattern of no differences (or a few improvements) in cognitive performance (e.g., executive functioning, working memory, attention, academic functioning) when comparing people who used active workstations to people in various sedentary control conditions [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21].…”

Evidence to design ‘just right’ work using active workstations is currently limited

“…It is worthwhile to consider the review by Dupont et al 1 in the historical context of work design and occupational medicine. In the mid-20th century, the focus of work physical demand research was on occupations with high intensity physical work demands, such as the high energy expenditure and high biomechanical loads in fishing, forestry and lifting occupations 2.…”