Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work

Abstract

At present there is low-quality evidence that the use of sit-stand desks reduce workplace sitting at short-term and medium-term follow-ups. However, there is no evidence on their effects on sitting over longer follow-up periods. Effects of other types of interventions, including workplace policy changes, provision of information and counselling, and multi-component interventions, are mostly inconsistent. The quality of evidence is low to very low for most interventions, mainly because of limitations in study protocols and small sample sizes. There is a need for larger cluster-RCTs with longer-term follow-ups to determine the effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce sitting time at work.

The effectiveness and complexity of interventions targeting sedentary behaviour across the lifespan: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Our findings are supported by previous systematic reviews in adults [23,27,29,30], demonstrating that the interventions had a positive effect on reducing SB. In line with the findings from Peachey et al which included studies published up to July 2017 [27], the findings from this review demonstrated the greatest reduction in sitting time from environmental interventions.…”

“…A variety of strategies and frameworks have been applied to SB interventions including, individualised and community-based tailoring, incorporating environmental, behavioural or mixed approaches to reducing sitting time. Environmental interventions may aim to modify home, school and/or workplace layouts as well as restructuring outdoor spaces and/or facilities to reduce sedentary time [22,23]. Behavioural interventions focus on theory driven approaches that have the potential to influence behavioural determinants to promote healthier behaviours [24,25].…”

“…reduce SB) that can be applied to intervention development. Although a number of previous reviews have been conducted on the effectiveness of SB interventions, most focus on specific settings [23] or population groups [27,29,30]. Interventions in these reviews vary in their complexity, but this has not previously been investigated.…”

Should We Scale-Up? A Mixed Methods Process Evaluation of an Intervention Targeting Sedentary Office Workers Using the RE-AIM QuEST Framework

“…Reducing the burden of disease is contingent on effective workplace interventions being implemented at scale; and, although interventions have been effective [7,8], a significant proportion have been conducted on a relatively small scale [9]. Furthermore, in these interventions, there is a clear emphasis on reporting indicators of efficacy, and a failure to measure and/or report on indicators that would inform the potential for scale-up and sustainability (e.g., participation rate and/or cost) [9][10][11].…”

Standing Meetings Are Feasible and Effective in Reducing Sitting Time among Office Workers—Walking Meetings Are Not: Mixed-Methods Results on the Feasibility and Effectiveness of Active Meetings Based on Data from the “Take a Stand!” Study

“…A high level of sitting time is detrimental to health [1,2]. Among office workers, multicomponent interventions, including changes to the office environment, changes in the organization of the work and provision of information, have proved effective to reduce sitting time [3]. One element often included in such interventions is standing and walking meetings.…”