Does the use of standing 'hot' desks change sedentary work time in an open plan office?
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.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The concept of non-territorial workplace has been adopted by a growing number of organisations. It is clear that the main driver for desk sharing practices is the tangible economic benefits guaranteed by reducing the amount of office space per person. However, the question of whether or not occupant comfort or productivity are compromised in the pursuit of space efficiency has never been investigated. This paper draws on a database from Australian building occupant survey to investigate how desk arrangements (whether or not one has a pre-allocated desk) can affect occupant satisfaction, self-reported productivity or health at workplaces. Our statistical model indicates a fall in occupant self-assessed productivity as spatial factors (such as the office layout allowing easiness of interaction with colleagues, the ability to adjust/personalise workspace, and the amount of storage space provided) perform below occupant expectations. Analysis of the results also show that the association of spatial factors with occupants' self-assessed productivity (quantified by odds ratios) was more pronounced among those in non-territorial workplaces, compared to those who are assigned with a pre-allocated desk. With respect to self-assessed health, the comfort of furnishing was identified as the strongest predictor for shared-desk users. Our findings suggest that these spatial factors, rather than the desk ownership itself, play a more significant role in the non-territorial work arrangement, affecting occupant attitude towards their building.0Comments 0Citations
- "Refs. [41,42]). The nature of non-territorial workplaces requires their occupants to be more active and expend more energy inside their building: e.g. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Excessive sitting has been linked to poor health. It is unknown whether reducing total sitting time or increasing brief sit-to-stand transitions is more beneficial. We conducted a randomized pilot study to assess whether it is feasible for working and non-working older adults to reduce these two different behavioral targets. Methods: Thirty adults (15 workers and 15 non-workers) age 50?70 years were randomized to one of two conditions (a 2-hour reduction in daily sitting or accumulating 30 additional brief sit-to-stand transitions per day). Sitting time, standing time, sit-to-stand transitions and stepping were assessed by a thigh worn inclinometer (activPAL). Participants were assessed for 7 days at baseline and followed while the intervention was delivered (2 weeks). Mixed effects regression analyses adjusted for days within participants, device wear time, and employment status. Time by condition interactions were investigated. Results: Recruitment, assessments, and intervention delivery were feasible. The ?reduce sitting? group reduced their sitting by two hours, the ?increase sit-to-stand? group had no change in sitting time (p < .001). The sit-to-stand transition group increased their sit-to-stand transitions, the sitting group did not (p < .001). Conclusions: This study was the first to demonstrate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of specific sedentary behavioral goals.0Comments 1Citation
- "Other studies have shown no change in physical activity , or small changes as seen in our study  . Our study adds to this body of literature because few previous sedentary behavior intervention pilot studies have utilized a randomized design29303132. Furthermore, most studies did not include participants over 65 years of age and were delivered exclusively in worksite settings [17,29] . Three previous studies in older adults used only prepost designs and did not find as large a reduction in sitting as in our cohort262728. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background: Excessive sitting time is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease mortality and morbidity independent of physical activity. This aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a sit-stand workstation on sitting time, and vascular, metabolic and musculoskeletal outcomes in office workers, and to investigate workstation acceptability and feasibility. Methods: A two-arm, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial was conducted in one organisation. Participants were asymptomatic full-time office workers aged ≥18 years. Each participant in the intervention arm had a sit-stand workstation installed on their workplace desk for 8 weeks. Participants in the control arm received no intervention. The primary outcome was workplace sitting time, assessed at 0, 4 and 8 weeks by an ecological momentary assessment diary. Secondary behavioural, cardiometabolic and musculoskeletal outcomes were assessed. Acceptability and feasibility were assessed via questionnaire and interview. ANCOVA and magnitude-based inferences examined intervention effects relative to controls at 4 and 8 weeks. Participants and researchers were not blind to group allocation. Results: Forty-seven participants were randomised (intervention n = 26; control n = 21). Relative to the control group at 8 weeks, the intervention group had a beneficial decrease in sitting time (-80.2 min/8-h workday (95 % CI = -129.0, -31.4); p = 0.002), increase in standing time (72.9 min/8-h workday (21.2, 124.6); p = 0.007) and decrease in total cholesterol (-0.40 mmol/L (-0.79, -0.003); p = 0.049). No harmful changes in musculoskeletal discomfort/pain were observed relative to controls, and beneficial changes in flow-mediated dilation and diastolic blood pressure were observed. Most participants self-reported that the workstation was easy to use and their work-related productivity did not decrease when using the device. Factors that negatively influenced workstation use were workstation design, the social environment, work tasks and habits. Conclusion: Short-term use of a feasible sit-stand workstation reduced daily sitting time and led to beneficial improvements in cardiometabolic risk parameters in asymptomatic office workers. These findings imply that if the observed use of the sit-stand workstations continued over a longer duration, sit-stand workstations may have important ramifications for the prevention and reduction of cardiometabolic risk in a large proportion of the working population. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02496507 .0Comments 2Citations
- "Accordingly, while the majority of the literature suggests sit-stand workstations have little to no detrimental impact on musculoskeletal outcomes in the short term, a greater understanding of the long-term impact of sit-stand workstations on musculoskeletal outcomes is required, and providing workers with more comprehensive advice and guidance on safe and optimal use for health is supported by our findings. The qualitative data provided new insights into participant's experiences and barriers to sit-stand workstation use202122. Patterns of workstation use varied across participants, and an interaction between workstation design and task type appeared to influence how participants made use of the standing feature. For example , completing paper-based and filing tasks were difficult when standing due to a lack of workstation space. "