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.
"In recent years, sit-stand workstations have been evaluated with respect to their potential to reduce sedentary time as they provide the most elementary form of 'not sitting' during on-going work. While Alkhajah et al. (2012) report a significant reduction in sedentary time at the workplace following the introduction of a personal sit-stand workstation, Gilson et al. (2012) did not find a significant change in proportion of work time spent in sedentary behaviour after fitting a pod of four height adjustable desks into the centre of an open plan office space. Alkhajah et al. also evaluated acceptability, showing a strong preference of the users (83%) not to return to their old workstation set-up after three months of using the sit-stand workstation. "
[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.
"Importantly, recent studies have shown that they sit for an average of six hours during an eight-hour workday, with this sitting time often accumulated through prolonged unbroken bouts of 30 minutes or more [13-16]. Emerging evidence suggests that targeting workplace sitting through strategies such as modifying the physical work environment [13,17-20], the provision of education sessions and behaviour change advice [16,21,22], or a combination of these strategies [23,24], can be effective. However, information on the development processes of these interventions, such as behaviour change models used and the operationalisation of constructs into intervention messages is limited. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Sitting, particularly in prolonged, unbroken bouts, is widespread within the office workplace, yet few interventions have addressed this newly-identified health risk behaviour. This paper describes the iterative development process and resulting intervention procedures for the Stand Up Australia research program focusing on a multi-component workplace intervention to reduce sitting time.
The development of Stand Up Australia followed three phases. 1) Conceptualisation: Stand Up Australia was based on social cognitive theory and social ecological model components. These were operationalised via a taxonomy of intervention strategies and designed to target multiple levels of influence including: organisational structures (e.g. via management consultation), the physical work environment (via provision of height-adjustable workstations), and individual employees (e.g. via face-to-face coaching). 2) Formative research: Intervention components were separately tested for their feasibility and acceptability. 3) Pilot studies: Stand Up Comcare tested the integrated intervention elements in a controlled pilot study examining efficacy, feasibility and acceptability. Stand Up UQ examined the additional value of the organisational- and individual-level components over height-adjustable workstations only in a three-arm controlled trial. In both pilot studies, office workers' sitting time was measured objectively using activPAL3 devices and the intervention was refined based on qualitative feedback from managers and employees.
Results and feedback from participants and managers involved in the intervention development phases suggest high efficacy, acceptance, and feasibility of all intervention components. The final version of the Stand Up Australia intervention includes strategies at the organisational (senior management consultation, representatives consultation workshop, team champions, staff information and brainstorming session with information booklet, and supportive emails from managers to staff), environmental (height-adjustable workstations), and individual level (face-to-face coaching session and telephone support). Stand Up Australia is currently being evaluated in the context of a cluster-randomised controlled trial at the Department of Human Services (DHS) in Melbourne, Australia.
Stand Up Australia is an evidence-guided and systematically developed workplace intervention targeting reductions in office workers' sitting time.
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 02/2014; 11(1):21. DOI:10.1186/1479-5868-11-21 · 4.11 Impact Factor
"A number of ergonomic interventions have also been investigated as a means of reducing unhealthy sitting behavior or increasing energy expenditure in office workers. These include walking workstations
[23,24], portal pedal machines
, and the use of adjustable sit-stand workstations
[11,26]. Of these, adjustable sit-stand desks
[11,26] show particular promise. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Prolonged sitting is a specific occupational hazard in office workers. There is growing evidence that prolonged sitting is detrimental to metabolic health. The aim of this study is to determine whether providing office workers with education along with adjustable sit-stand workstations leads to reduction in sitting behavior.Methods/design: A randomized control trial (RCT) with three groups (one control group and two intervention groups) will be conducted in an office workplace setting. The education intervention group will receive an education package that encourages reduction in sitting behaviors. The sit-stand desk intervention group will receive the same education package along with an adjustable sit-stand desk. Participants will be included in the study if they are currently employed in a full-time academic or administrative role that involves greater than 15 hours per week or greater than 4 hours per day computer-based work. Baseline data will include participant's age, gender, weight, height, smoking habit, employment position, level of education, and baseline self-reported leisure time physical activity. The primary outcome is the average daily sedentary time during work hours, measured by an accelerometer. Participant recruitment commenced in March 2013 and will be completed by December 2013.
This study will determine whether providing office workers with an adjustable sit-stand desk and individually targeted education, or education alone, is more effective in decreasing sitting behaviors than no intervention.Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12613000366752.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.