Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Sedentary behaviour (SB; time spent sitting) is associated with musculoskeletal pain (MSP) conditions; however, no prior systematic review has examined these associations according to SB domains. We synthesised evidence on occupational and non-occupational SB and MSP conditions. Methods Guided by a PRISMA protocol, eight databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus, and AMED) and three grey literature sources (Google Scholar, WorldChat, and Trove) were searched (January 1, 2000, to March 17, 2021) for original quantitative studies of adults ≥ 18 years. Clinical-condition studies were excluded. Studies’ risk of bias was assessed using the QualSyst checklist. For meta-analyses, random effect inverse-variance pooled effect size was estimated; otherwise, best-evidence synthesis was used for narrative review. Results Of 178 potentially-eligible studies, 79 were included [24 general population; 55 occupational (incuding15 experimental/intervention)]; 56 studies were of high quality, with scores > 0.75. Data for 26 were meta-synthesised. For cross-sectional studies of non-occupational SB, meta-analysis showed full-day SB to be associated with low back pain [LBP – OR = 1.19(1.03 – 1.38)]. Narrative synthesis found full-day SB associations with knee pain, arthritis, and general MSP, but the evidence was insufficient on associations with neck/shoulder pain, hip pain, and upper extremities pain. Evidence of prospective associations of full-day SB with MSP conditions was insufficient. Also, there was insufficient evidence on both cross-sectional and prospective associations between leisure-time SB and MSP conditions. For occupational SB, cross-sectional studies meta-analysed indicated associations of self-reported workplace sitting with LBP [OR = 1.47(1.12 – 1.92)] and neck/shoulder pain [OR = 1.73(1.46 – 2.03)], but not with extremities pain [OR = 1.17(0.65 – 2.11)]. Best-evidence synthesis identified inconsistent findings on cross-sectional association and a probable negative prospective association of device-measured workplace sitting with LBP-intensity in tradespeople. There was cross-sectional evidence on the association of computer time with neck/shoulder pain, but insufficient evidence for LBP and general MSP. Experimental/intervention evidence indicated reduced LBP, neck/shoulder pain, and general MSP with reducing workplace sitting. Conclusions We found cross-sectional associations of occupational and non-occupational SB with MSP conditions, with occupational SB associations being occupation dependent, however, reverse causality bias cannot be ruled out. While prospective evidence was inconclusive, reducing workplace sitting was associated with reduced MSP conditions. Future studies should emphasise prospective analyses and examining potential interactions with chronic diseases. Protocol registration PROSPERO ID # CRD42020166412 (Amended to limit the scope)

Background Sitting (sedentary behaviour) is widespread among desk-based office workers and a high level of sedentary behaviour is a risk factor for poor health. Reducing workplace sitting time is therefore an important prevention strategy. Interventions are more likely to be effective if they are theory and evidence-based. The Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) provides a framework for intervention development. This article describes the development of the Stand More AT Work ( SMArT Work) intervention, which aims to reduce sitting time among National Health Service (NHS) office-based workers in Leicester, UK. Methods We followed the BCW guide and used the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Behaviour (COM-B) model to conduct focus group discussions with 39 NHS office workers. With these data we used the taxonomy of Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTv1) to identify the most appropriate strategies for facilitating behaviour change in our intervention. To identify the best method for participants to self-monitor their sitting time, a sub-group of participants ( n  = 31) tested a number of electronic self-monitoring devices. Results From our BCW steps and the BCT-Taxonomy we identified 10 behaviour change strategies addressing environmental (e.g. provision of height adjustable desks,), organisational (e.g. senior management support, seminar), and individual level (e.g. face-to-face coaching session) barriers. The Darma cushion scored the highest for practicality and acceptability for self-monitoring sitting. Conclusion The BCW guide, COM-B model and BCT-Taxonomy can be applied successfully in the context of designing a workplace intervention for reducing sitting time through standing and moving more. The intervention was developed in collaboration with office workers (a participatory approach) to ensure relevance for them and their work situation. The effectiveness of this intervention is currently being evaluated in a randomised controlled trial. Trial registration ISRCTN10967042 . Registered on 2 February 2015.

Sit-stand workstations may result in significant reductions in workplace sitting. However, few studies have examined long-term maintenance under real-world conditions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate workplace sitting time, cardio-metabolic biomarkers, and work productivity during a workplace re-design which included the installation of sit-stand workstations. Natural experiment with appropriately matched comparison. Office workers from distinct worksites in the same unit were recruited (Intervention, n=24; Comparison, n=12). Intervention arm participants received a sit-stand workstation and 4 months of sitting-specific motivational support. The comparison arm received 4 months of ergonomic focused motivational support. Time spent in sitting, standing, and other physical activity were measured by activPAL3c for a week. Cardio-metabolic biomarkers and work productivity were also measured. Assessments occurred at baseline, 4 months, and 18 months. At 4 months, work sitting time was reduced by 56.7±89.1min/8h workday (d=−0.64), relative to comparison. Standing time (37.4±69.2min/8h workday; d=0.54) and sit-to-stand transitions (3.3±0.4min/8h workday, d=0.44) were also improved relative to comparison. At 18 months, work sitting time reductions (52.6±68.3min/8h workday; d=−0.77) and standing time improvements (17.7±54.8min/8h workday, d=0.32) were maintained in the intervention group relative to comparison. Cardio-metabolic and work productivity changes were mixed; however, strongest effects favoring the intervention group were observed at 18 months. Sit-stand workstations, accompanied with behavioral support, were effective in reducing workplace and overall daily sitting and increasing standing time in a real-world setting. The effect appears to have been sustained for 18 months, with mixed results in cardio-metabolic and productivity outcomes.

The Web-based, evidence-informed BeUpstanding Champion Toolkit was developed to provide employers (via a \"train-the-champion approach\") with resources and support to help in reducing prolonged sitting in their own desk-based workplace. As part of a five-phase research-to-dissemination process, this study reports on the evaluation of the beta (test) version of this toolkit (Phase 2). The objective of our study was to evaluate (1) the implementation of the toolkit by workplace champions and (2) the impact of the toolkit on sitting (primary outcome), standing, and moving; use of activity-promoting strategies; knowledge and attitudes; and indicators of health and work performance. An implementation study using a pre-post design was conducted in 7 desk-based workplaces in Australia (September 2015 to May 2016), with work teams (one per workplace) purposively recruited to ensure representation across a range of sectors (white- or blue-collar), organizational sizes (small or medium or large), and locations (metropolitan or regional). All staff within participating teams were invited to participate in the relevant toolkit activities. Implementation outcomes (time commitment required by champions and toolkit activities completed) were collected from each champion via telephone interviews. Changes in impact outcomes, measured via a Web-based questionnaire completed by employees at baseline and 3 months postimplementation, were assessed using mixed models, correcting for clustering. Champions reported a 30-60 minutes per week time commitment to the toolkit activities. All teams formed a wellbeing committee and sent the staff surveys at both time points; most champions held a staff consultation workshop (6/7), identified team-level strategies within that workshop (5/7), used the communication resources provided within the toolkit (emails, posters; 6/7), and completed the action plan (5/7). In total, 52% (315 of ≈600) employees participated in at least one survey and 97 (16%) participated in both. At follow-up, there was a significant (P<.05) reduction in self-reported workplace sitting time compared to baseline (-6.3%, 95% CI -10.1 to -2.5; n=85) equating to ≈30 minutes per workday. Significant benefits were also observed for the use of activity-promoting strategies, with small, nonsignificant changes observed for knowledge and attitudes and indicators of health and work performance. The beta version of the BeUpstanding Champion Toolkit was feasible to implement and effective in reducing self-reported workplace sitting across a broad range of desk-based workplaces. The next phase (Phase 3) will build on these findings to optimize the toolkit for wider-scale implementation and longer term evaluation.

Background The workplace is a prominent domain for excessive sitting. The consequences of increased sitting time include adverse health outcomes such as cardiovascular disease and poor mental wellbeing. There is evidence that breaking up sitting could improve health, however, any such intervention in the workplace would need to be informed by a theoretical evidence-based framework. The aim of this study was to use the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to develop a tailored intervention to break up and reduce workplace sitting in desk-based workers. Methods The BCW guide was followed for this qualitative, pre-intervention development study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 office workers (26–59 years, mean age 40.9 [SD = 10.8] years; 68% female) who were purposively recruited from local council offices and a university in the East of England region. The interview questions were developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Transcripts were deductively analysed using the COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation – Behaviour) model of behaviour. The Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy Version 1 (BCTv1) was thereafter used to identify possible strategies that could be used to facilitate change in sitting behaviour of office workers in a future intervention. Results Qualitative analysis using COM-B identified that participants felt that they had the physical Capability to break up their sitting time, however, some lacked the psychological Capability in relation to the knowledge of both guidelines for sitting time and the consequences of excess sitting. Social and physical Opportunity was identified as important, such as a supportive organisational culture (social) and the need for environmental resources (physical). Motivation was highlighted as a core target for intervention, both reflective  Motivation , such as beliefs about capability and intention and automatic in terms of overcoming habit through reinforcement. Seven intervention functions and three policy categories from the BCW were identified as relevant . Finally, 39 behaviour change techniques (BCTs) were identified as potential active components for an intervention to break up sitting time in the workplace. Conclusions The TDF, COM-B model and BCW can be successfully applied through a systematic process to understand the drivers of behaviour of office workers to develop a co-created intervention that can be used to break up and decrease sitting in the workplace. Intervention designers should consider the identified BCW factors and BCTs when developing interventions to reduce and break up workplace sitting.

Objectives Many current jobs are characterized by sedentary behavior (SB) and lack of physical activity (PA). This review addresses the effectiveness of workplace interventions that are implemented during productive work and are intended to change workers' SB and/or PA. Methods We searched Scopus for articles published from 1992 until 12 March 2015. Relevant studies were evaluated using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies and summarized in a best-evidence synthesis. Primary outcomes were SB and PA, both at work and overall (ie, during the whole day); work performance and health-related parameters were secondary outcomes. Results The review included 40 studies describing 41 interventions organized into three categories: alternative workstations (20), interventions promoting stair use (11), and personalized behavioral interventions (10). Alternative workstations were found to decrease overall SB (strong evidence; even for treadmills separately); interventions promoting stair use were found to increase PA at work while personalized behavioral interventions increased overall PA (both with moderate evidence). There was moderate evidence to show alternative workstations influenced neither hemodynamics nor cardiorespiratory fitness and personalized behavioral interventions did not influence anthropometrie measures. Evidence was either insufficient or conflicting for intervention effects on work performance and lipid and metabolic profiles. Conclusions Current evidence suggests that some of the reviewed workplace interventions that are compatible with productive work indeed have positive effects on SB or PA at work. In addition, some of the interventions were found to influence overall SB or PA positively. Putative long-term effects remain to be established.

Objective This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the Stand Up Victoria intervention - a multicomponent workplace intervention that successfully reduced workplace sitting - on productivity in the short- and longer-term. Methods Desk-based workers [5-39 per worksite; 68% women; mean age 45.6 (standard deviation 9.4) years] were cluster randomized by office worksite to receive intervention (7 worksites, 136 workers) or control (7 worksites, 95 workers). The intervention used organizational-, environmental-, and individual-level approaches to address workplace sitting. Productivity outcomes were measured via the Health and Work Questionnaire (HWQ; 10 outcomes) and Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ; 5 outcomes), administered at 0 (baseline), 3 (initial), and 12 (long-term) months. Intervention effects were assessed by linear mixed models, accounting for repeated measures and clustering, baseline values, and potential confounders. Evaluable case and multiple imputation analyses were used. Results At 12 months, trends for improvement were observed in the HWQ non-work satisfaction subscale (P=0.053) and stress item (P=0.086). Intervention effects on remaining outcomes for the HWQ were small and non-significant at both timepoints. At 3 months, intervention effects showed significant improvements in the WLQ mental demands subscale (P=0.043). At 12 months, intervention effects showed significant (P<0.05) small-to-moderate improvements in four WLQ outcomes (weighted total score, time-, mental-, and output demands), with physical demands showing a small significant worsening. Conclusions were robust to missing data assumptions. Conclusions The intervention improved some measures of productivity at 12 months, providing important evidence to the business case supporting workplace sitting-reduction interventions.

Objectives Prolonged sitting at work has been found to increase risk for musculoskeletal pain. The office-based intervention ＂Take a Stand!＂ was effective in reducing sitting time at work. We aimed to study the effect of the intervention on a secondary outcome: musculoskeletal pain. Methods Take a Stand! included 19 offices (317 workers) at four workplaces cluster randomized to intervention or control. The multicomponent intervention lasted three months and included management support, environmental changes, and local adaptation. Control participants behaved as usual. Musculoskeletal pain was measured by self-report questionnaire assessing pain in neck-shoulders, back and extremities in three categories at baseline, and one and three months follow-up. Results At one month, there was no difference in odds ratio (OR) for pain in neck-shoulders between the two groups. However, after three months, the OR was 0.52 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.30-0.92] for pain in neck-shoulders in the intervention compared to the control group. No differences were found between the intervention and control group for pain in back and extremities over the three months. For total pain score a slight reduction was found in the intervention compared to the control group at one and three months [-0.13 (95% CI -0.23- -0.03) and -0.17 (95% CI -0.32- -0.01)]. Conclusions The secondary analyses showed that the office-based intervention Take a Stand! reduced neck-shoulder pain after three months and total pain score after one and three months among office workers, but not neck-shoulder pain after one month or pain in the back and extremities.

OBJECTIVES: Sedentary behavior is associated with diseases (eg, cardiovascular, diabetes type 2). We aimed to describe the sitting and moving behavior of desk-based hybrid employees of a large company in Germany working in either a traditional open plan office (OPO) or an activity-based flex office (AFO) and when working from home. We also aimed to determine if the behaviors differ between both working environments (ie, working from home versus the office) and the office concepts (OPO versus AFO). METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study to measure sedentary time, sit-to-stand-transitions (STS), standing, and physical activity (time spent physically active and steps) in different working environments with activPAL3. Time-use data were also examined using compositional data analysis. Mixed model regression was performed to estimate means and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The main models were adjusted for sex, age, profession and measurement phase (July–November 2021). RESULTS: The sample comprised 102 employees (women: N=27, mean age 38.9 years). On average, OPO employees spent 351 minutes (95% CI 322–380) being sedentary, took 2763 steps (95% CI 2460–3066) and made 16.6 STS (95% CI 13.6–19.6). AFO workers averaged 333 sedentary minutes (95% CI 308–358), 2906 steps (95% CI 2645–3167) and 19.1 STS (95% CI 16.6–21.7). When working from home, workers spent 378 minutes (95% CI 359–396) being sedentary, took 1257 steps (95% CI 1063–1452) and made 20.9 STS (95% CI 19.0–22.8). Working from home was associated with increased sedentary time and fewer steps but more STS. CONCLUSION: Sedentary time of desk-based workers seems to be prolonged when working from home. As sedentary behavior increases the risk of disease, there is a need for measures to reduce employees` sedentary time in all working environments.

Background There is increasing concern about the time people spend in sedentary behaviour, including screen time, leisure and occupational sitting. The number of both primary research studies (published trials) and reviews has been growing rapidly in this research area. A summary of the highest level of evidence that provides a broader quantitative synthesis of diverse types of interventions is needed. This research is to articulate the evidence of efficacy of sedentary behaviour interventions to inform interventions to reduce sitting time. The umbrella review, therefore, synthesised systematic reviews that conducted meta-analyses of interventions aiming at reducing sedentary behaviour outcomes across all age group and settings. Method A systematic search was conducted on six databases (MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Health via EBSCOhost platform, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Systematic Reviews). Included articles were systematic reviews with meta-analysis of interventions aiming at reducing sedentary behaviour (screen time, sitting time or sedentary time) in the general population across all age group. Results Seventeen reviews met the inclusion criteria (7 in children and adolescent, 10 in adults). All reviews of sedentary behaviour interventions in children and adolescents investigated intervention effectiveness in reducing screen time. Six out of 11 meta-analyses (reported in 7 reviews) showed small but significant changes in viewing time. All reviews of sedentary behaviour interventions in office workplaces indicated substantial reduction in occupational sitting time (range: 39.6 to 100 min per 8-h workday). Sub-group analyses reported a trend favouring environmental change components such as sit-stand desks, active permissive workstations etc. Meta-analyses indicated that sedentary behaviour interventions were superior to physical activity alone interventions or combined physical activity and sedentary behaviour interventions in reducing sitting time. Conclusion The current systematic reviews and meta-analyses supported sedentary behaviour interventions for reducing occupational sitting time in particular, with small changes seen in screen time in children and adolescents. Future research should explore approaches to maintaining behaviour change beyond the intervention period and investigate the potential of sedentary behaviour reduction interventions in older age groups in non-occupational settings.