↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating the effectiveness of organisational-level strategies with or without an activity tracker to reduce office workers’ sitting time: a cluster-randomised trial

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
30 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluating the effectiveness of organisational-level strategies with or without an activity tracker to reduce office workers’ sitting time: a cluster-randomised trial
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12966-016-0441-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. L. Brakenridge, B. S. Fjeldsoe, D. C. Young, E. A. H. Winkler, D. W. Dunstan, L. M. Straker, G. N. Healy

Abstract

Office workers engage in high levels of sitting time. Effective, context-specific, and scalable strategies are needed to support widespread sitting reduction. This study aimed to evaluate organisational-support strategies alone or in combination with an activity tracker to reduce sitting in office workers. From one organisation, 153 desk-based office workers were cluster-randomised (by team) to organisational support only (e.g., manager support, emails; 'Group ORG', 9 teams, 87 participants), or organisational support plus LUMOback activity tracker ('Group ORG + Tracker', 9 teams, 66 participants). The waist-worn tracker provided real-time feedback and prompts on sitting and posture. ActivPAL3 monitors were used to ascertain primary outcomes (sitting time during work- and overall hours) and other activity outcomes: prolonged sitting time (≥30 min bouts), time between sitting bouts, standing time, stepping time, and number of steps. Health and work outcomes were assessed by questionnaire. Changes within each group (three- and 12 months) and differences between groups were analysed by linear mixed models. Missing data were multiply imputed. At baseline, participants (46 % women, 23-58 years) spent (mean ± SD) 74.3 ± 9.7 % of their workday sitting, 17.5 ± 8.3 % standing and 8.1 ± 2.7 % stepping. Significant (p < 0.05) reductions in sitting time (both work and overall) were observed within both groups, but only at 12 months. For secondary activity outcomes, Group ORG significantly improved in work prolonged sitting, time between sitting bouts and standing time, and overall prolonged sitting time (12 months), and in overall standing time (three- and 12 months); while Group ORG + Tracker, significantly improved in work prolonged sitting, standing, stepping and overall standing time (12 months). Adjusted for confounders, the only significant between-group differences were a greater stepping time and step count for Group ORG + Tracker relative to Group ORG (+20.6 min/16 h day, 95 % CI: 3.1, 38.1, p = 0.021; +846.5steps/16 h day, 95 % CI: 67.8, 1625.2, p = 0.033) at 12 months. Observed changes in health and work outcomes were small and not statistically significant. Organisational-support strategies with or without an activity tracker resulted in improvements in sitting, prolonged sitting and standing; adding a tracker enhanced stepping changes. Improvements were most evident at 12 months, suggesting the organisational-support strategies may have taken time to embed within the organisation. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12614000252617 . Registered 10 March 2014.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 106 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 20%
Student > Master 20 19%
Researcher 17 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 31 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 18 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 17%
Sports and Recreations 17 16%
Psychology 13 12%
Unspecified 12 11%
Other 30 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2018.
All research outputs
#239,094
of 12,306,918 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#86
of 1,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,657
of 264,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#6
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,306,918 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,276 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,855 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.