↓ Skip to main content

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#7 of 8,723)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
89 news outlets
blogs
12 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
312 tweeters
facebook
14 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
5 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010912.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nipun Shrestha, Katriina T Kukkonen-Harjula, Jos H Verbeek, Sharea Ijaz, Veerle Hermans, Soumyadeep Bhaumik

Abstract

Office work has changed considerably over the previous couple of decades and has become sedentary in nature. Physical inactivity at workplaces and particularly increased sitting has been linked to increase in cardiovascular disease, obesity and overall mortality. To evaluate the effects of workplace interventions to reduce sitting at work compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, OSH UPDATE, PsycINFO, Clinical trials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to 2 June, 2015. We also screened reference lists of articles and contacted authors to find more studies to include. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCTs), and quasi-randomised controlled trials of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) with a concurrent control group. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or objectively measured by means of an accelerometer-inclinometer. We considered energy expenditure, duration and number of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more, work productivity and adverse events as secondary outcomes. Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional data where required. We included 20 studies, two cross-over RCTs, 11 RCTs, three cRCTs and four CBAs, with a total of 2180 participants from high income nations. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (nine studies), policy changes (two studies), information and counselling (seven studies) and interventions from multiple categories (two studies). One study had both physical workplace changes and information and counselling components. We did not find any studies that had investigated the effect of periodic breaks or standing or walking meetings. Physical workplace changesA sit-stand desk alone compared to no intervention reduced sitting time at work per workday with between thirty minutes to two hours at short term (up to three months) follow-up (six studies, 218 participants, very low quality evidence). In two studies, sit-stand desks with additional counselling reduced sitting time at work in the same range at short-term follow-up (61 participants, very low quality evidence). One study found a reduction at six months' follow-up of -56 minutes (95% CI -101 to -12, very low quality evidence) compared to no intervention. Also total sitting time at work and outside work decreased with sit-stand desks compared to no intervention (MD -78 minutes, 95% CI -125 to -31, one study) as did the duration of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -52 minutes, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies). This is considerably less than the two to four hours recommended by experts. Sit-stand desks did not have a considerable effect on work performance, musculoskeletal symptoms or sick leave. It remains unclear if standing can repair the harms of sitting because there is hardly any extra energy expenditure.The effects of active workstations were inconsistent. Treadmill desks combined with counselling reduced sitting time at work (MD -29 minutes, 95% CI -55 to -2, one study) compared to no intervention at 12 weeks' follow-up. Pedalling workstations combined with information did not reduce inactive sitting at work considerably (MD -12 minutes, 95% CI -24 to 1, one study) compared to information alone at 16 weeks' follow-up. The quality of evidence was low for active workstations. Policy changesTwo studies with 443 participants provided low quality evidence that walking strategies did not have a considerable effect on workplace sitting time at 10 weeks' (MD -16 minutes, 95% CI -54 to 23) or 21 weeks' (MD -17 minutes, 95% CI -58 to 25) follow-up respectively. Information and counsellingCounselling reduced sitting time at work (MD -28 minutes, 95% CI -52 to -5, two studies, low quality evidence) at medium term (three months to 12 months) follow-up. Mindfulness training did not considerably reduce workplace sitting time (MD -2 minutes, 95% CI -22 to 18) at six months' follow-up and at 12 months' follow-up (MD -16 minutes, 95% CI -45 to 12, one study, low quality evidence). There was no considerable increase in work engagement with counselling.There was an inconsistent effect of computer prompting on sitting time at work. One study found no considerable effect on sitting at work (MD -17 minutes, 95% CI -48 to 14, low quality evidence) at 10 days' follow-up, while another study reported a significant reduction in sitting at work (MD -55 minutes, 95% CI -96 to -14, low quality evidence) at 13 weeks' follow-up. Computer prompts to stand reduced sitting at work by 14 minutes more (95% CI 10 to 19, one study) compared to computer prompts to step at six days' follow-up. Computer prompts did not change the number of sitting episodes that last 30 minutes or longer. Interventions from multiple categories Interventions combining multiple categories had an inconsistent effect on sitting time at work, with a reduction in sitting time at 12 weeks' (25 participants, very low quality evidence) and six months' (294 participants, low quality evidence) follow-up in two studies but no considerable effect at 12 months' follow-up in one study (MD -47.98, 95% CI -103 to 7, 294 participants, low quality evidence). At present there is very low to low quality evidence that sit-stand desks may decrease workplace sitting between thirty minutes to two hours per day without having adverse effects at the short or medium term. There is no evidence on the effects in the long term. There were no considerable or inconsistent effects of other interventions such as changing work organisation or information and counselling. There is a need for cluster-randomised trials with a sufficient sample size and long term follow-up to determine the effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce objectively measured sitting time at work.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 312 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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 17%
Other 1 8%
Lecturer 1 8%
Other 3 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 5 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Mathematics 1 8%
Environmental Science 1 8%
Computer Science 1 8%
Other 3 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1026. 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 08 October 2018.
All research outputs
#3,067
of 12,483,367 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7
of 8,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168
of 305,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,483,367 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,723 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 99% 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 305,397 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.