Does the use of standing 'hot' desks change sedentary work time in an open plan office?
ABSTRACT This study assessed the use of standing 'hot' desks in an open plan office and their impact on sedentary work time.
Australian employees (n=11; 46.9 [9.8] years; BMI 25.9 [3.5 kg/m(2)]) wore an armband accelerometer for two consecutive working weeks (November-December 2010). In the second week, employees were encouraged to use a pod of four standing 'hot' desks to stand and work as often as possible. Desk use was recorded using time logs. The percentages of daily work time spent in sedentary (<1.6 METs), light (1.6-3.0 METs) and moderate+ (>3 METs) intensity categories were calculated for each week, relative to the total daily time at work. Paired sample t tests were used to compare weekly differences.
Employees spent 8:09 ± 0:31h/day at work and 'hot' desk use ranged from zero to 9:35 h for the week. There were no significant changes in mean time spent in sedentary (difference of -0.1%), light (difference of 0.8%) and moderate+ (-0.7%) intensity categories. However, individual changes in sedentary work time ranged from -5.9 to 6.4%.
Volitional use of standing 'hot' desks varied and while individual changes were apparent, desk use did not alter overall sedentary work time in this sample.
- SourceAvailable from: Dianne Commissaris[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Sedentary work entails health risks. Dynamic (or active) workstations, at which computer tasks can be combined with physical activity, may reduce the risks of sedentary behaviour. The aim of this study was to evaluate short term task performance while working on three dynamic workstations: a treadmill, an elliptical trainer, a bicycle ergometer and a conventional standing workstation. A standard sitting workstation served as control condition. Fifteen Dutch adults performed five standardised but common office tasks in an office-like laboratory setting. Both objective and perceived work performance were measured. With the exception of high precision mouse tasks, short term work performance was not affected by working on a dynamic or a standing workstation. The participant's perception of decreased performance might complicate the acceptance of dynamic workstations, although most participants indicate that they would use a dynamic workstation if available at the workplace.Applied Ergonomics 06/2014; 45(6). DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2014.05.003 · 1.33 Impact Factor
Conference Paper: Active Office: Towards an Activity-Promoting Office Workplace Design[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders have become one of the most common chronic diseases of modern society. In this paper, we address the problem of physical inactivity in the context of office work and we introduce a new concept of working “in-motion” with high potential to reduce prolonged sedentary behavior and related degenerative phenomena. We promote a paradigm shift in workplace design towards an integrated supportive environment that provides opportunities for office workers to seamlessly change between different work environments. Based on that, we discuss associated opportunities and challenges for HCI design to encourage people for the adoption of a physically active work process in a more natural way.CHI 2012 Extended Abstracts, Austin, TX, USA; 05/2012
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Prolonged office sitting time adversely affects neuromuscular and cardiovascular health parameters. As a consequence, the present study investigated the effects of prompting the use of height-adjustable working desk (HAWD) on occupational sitting and standing time, neuromuscular outcomes and concentration in office workers. A single-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) with parallel group design was conducted. Thirty-eight office workers were supplied with HAWDs and randomly assigned (Strata: physical activity (PA), BMI, gender, workload) to a prompt (INT) or non-prompt (CON) group. INT received three daily screen-based prompts within 12 weeks. CON was only instructed once concerning the benefits of using HAWDs prior to the start of the study. Sitting and standing times were objectively assessed as primary outcomes for one entire working week using the ActiGraph wGT3X-BT at baseline (pre), after 6 (mid) and 12 weeks (post). Concentration (d2-test), postural sway during upright stance (under single, dual and triple task) and lower limb strength endurance (heel-rise) were collected as secondary outcomes. With large but not statistically significant within group effects from pre to post, INT increased weekly standing time at work by 9% (p = 0.22, d = 0.8) representing an increase from 7.2 h (4.8) to 9.7 (6.6) h (p = 0.07). Concentration and neuromuscular performance did not change from pre to post testing (0.23 < p < 0.95; 0.001 < ηp² < 0.05). Low-frequent and low cost screen-based point of choice prompts (3 per day within 12 weeks) already result in notable increases of occupational standing time of approx. daily 30 min. These stimuli, however, did not relevantly affect neuromuscular outcomes.International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 04/2015; 12(4):4340-53. DOI:10.3390/ijerph120404340 · 1.99 Impact Factor