- Email: [email protected]
Efficacy of an integrated approach to reduce sitting time in office workers
Friday 2 November Papers / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 15 (2012) S188–S264
S197
479
480
Efficacy of an integrated approach to reduce sitting time in office workers
A 5-months workplace pedometer-based intervention: Did it change employees’ sedentary behaviour 2 months after removal?
M. Neuhaus 1,∗ , G. Healy 1,2 , E. Eakin 1 , B. LaMontagne 3 , N. Owen 1,2 , D. Dunstan 2
Fjeldsoe 1 , A.
1
The University of Queensland, Cancer Prevention Research Centre, School of Population Health 2 Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Research Institute 3 The University of Melbourne, McCaughey Centre: VicHealth Centre for the Promotion of Mental Health and Community Wellbeing, Melbourne School of Population Health
Introduction: There is now substantial evidence linking prolonged sitting time with adverse health outcomes. Desk-based office workers accumulate high amounts of sitting time, often in prolonged bouts, making them an important target for workplace strategies to reduce prolonged sitting. Recent frameworks recommend an integrated approach to workplace health promotion that includes both individual behavior and organizational-level change elements. The advent of sit-stand workstations provides an opportunity to add environmental change to such an integrated approach. To date, no workplace intervention studies have addressed all these elements to target reductions in workplace sitting time. In a controlled workplace trial, we evaluated such an intervention to reduce sitting time. Methods: Participants were between 26–62 years of age (mean age: 44 ± 11years; 50% female) and were recruited from a single workplace, with intervention participants (n = 18) working on a separate floor from comparison participants (n = 18). The fourweek intervention communicated three key messages: “stand up, sit less, move more,” and comprised organizational (management consultation; worker information session; management support emails), environmental (sit-stand workstation: Ergotron WorkFitS), and, individual (30 minute face-to-face consultation; weekly telephone calls; email summaries after each contact) elements. Sitting time was measured using activPAL3TM activity monitors over seven days. Primary outcomes were changes in minutes/day spent sitting (including time accumulated in prolonged sitting bouts ≥30 minutes), standing, and stepping at the workplace and during all waking hours from baseline to four weeks. Analyses were by linear regression adjusted for baseline values (ANCOVA); significance level = 0.05, two-tailed. Results: At baseline, the overall mean for workplace sitting was 317 [SD 61] minutes/day, with much of this sitting time (110 [69] minutes/day) accrued in prolonged bouts. The intervention group (relative to the comparison group) significantly reduced sitting time at both the workplace (mean change [95% CI]: -128 [-162, -94] minutes/day) and across all waking hours (-78 [-120, -36] minutes/day). Reductions in workplace sitting were primarily driven by a reduction in sitting time accrued in prolonged bouts (-70 [103, -37] minutes/day). Workplace sitting was almost exclusively replaced by standing (+129 [+96, + 162] minutes/day) with minimal changes to stepping time (-1 [-7, + 5] minutes/day). Discussion: This integrated intervention, combining organizational, environmental, and individual elements, contributed to a significant reduction in objectively-measured sitting time in office workers. Cluster-randomized trials with larger, more representative samples and longer-term follow-ups are needed to determine the health and work-related benefits of reduced workplace sitting. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2012.11.482
J. Bort Roig 1,∗ , A. Puig Ribera 1 , N. Gilson 2 , Á. Gonzalez 3 , I. ˜ 5 Martínez Lemos 4 , M. Giné Garriga 5 , J. Fortuno 1
Universitat de Vic University of Queensland 3 Universidad del País Vasco 4 Universidad de Vigo 5 Universitat Ramon Llull-Blanquerna 2
Introduction: Higher levels of daily sitting time are associated with an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality. As a typical work day represents one-half of waking hours and because people spent an average of 10 hours sitting a day, workplace interventions aimed at reducing sitting time are needed. Currently, evidence on the effectiveness of workplace interventions for reducing sedentary behaviour is scarce. We evaluated the impact of a pedometer-based programme–based on Web technology–on employees’ sitting time two months after removing the intervention. Methods: Inactive white-collar employees (n = 264; age 42 ± 10 years; 171 women) undertook a 20-week programme at four Spanish Universities. A quasi-experimental design was used, with an additional Campus in each University acting as a control. Employees at these additional sites undertook key measures for comparative analyses (n = 135; control group; maintain normal behaviour) with the intervention group (n = 129). The intervention consisted of: a) a ramping phase (8 weeks) to progressively increase baseline step counts to 10.000 steps/workday by integrating active working tasks, short (10 ) and long (20 ) campus walking routes at low and moderate intensities, b) a maintenance phase (12 weeks) of the increased volume of step counts, with intensive researcher guidance (weekly emails). Adherence to behaviour change was assessed two months after completing the intervention. Employees used a pedometer and a Website that provided strategies, motivational materials and interactive features. Employees completed baseline and intervention measures at three points (after ramping, maintenance and adherence phase) of sitting time (domain and day-specific sitting time questionnaire). T Student tests analysed significant differences between groups. Results: Significant differences between groups (p < 0.05) were identified for a) TV sitting time at weekend with mean differences indicating a decrease of 27 and 25 minutes on the maintenance and adherence phase respectively, b) transport sitting time during work days with mean differences indicating a 10 minutes decrease on the adherence phase, (c) total sitting time during work days with mean differences indicating a 38 minutes decrease on the ramping phase. Small, non-significant changes were found for occupational sitting time. Conclusion: Our workplace pedometer-based programme decreased employee sitting times but not at work, which was our main purpose. This data suggests that employees could not integrate the strategies into their working routines but integrated them outside work instead, facilitating meaningful behaviour change in some specific sitting domains. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2012.11.483
S197
479
480
Efficacy of an integrated approach to reduce sitting time in office workers
A 5-months workplace pedometer-based intervention: Did it change employees’ sedentary behaviour 2 months after removal?
M. Neuhaus 1,∗ , G. Healy 1,2 , E. Eakin 1 , B. LaMontagne 3 , N. Owen 1,2 , D. Dunstan 2
Fjeldsoe 1 , A.
1
The University of Queensland, Cancer Prevention Research Centre, School of Population Health 2 Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Research Institute 3 The University of Melbourne, McCaughey Centre: VicHealth Centre for the Promotion of Mental Health and Community Wellbeing, Melbourne School of Population Health
Introduction: There is now substantial evidence linking prolonged sitting time with adverse health outcomes. Desk-based office workers accumulate high amounts of sitting time, often in prolonged bouts, making them an important target for workplace strategies to reduce prolonged sitting. Recent frameworks recommend an integrated approach to workplace health promotion that includes both individual behavior and organizational-level change elements. The advent of sit-stand workstations provides an opportunity to add environmental change to such an integrated approach. To date, no workplace intervention studies have addressed all these elements to target reductions in workplace sitting time. In a controlled workplace trial, we evaluated such an intervention to reduce sitting time. Methods: Participants were between 26–62 years of age (mean age: 44 ± 11years; 50% female) and were recruited from a single workplace, with intervention participants (n = 18) working on a separate floor from comparison participants (n = 18). The fourweek intervention communicated three key messages: “stand up, sit less, move more,” and comprised organizational (management consultation; worker information session; management support emails), environmental (sit-stand workstation: Ergotron WorkFitS), and, individual (30 minute face-to-face consultation; weekly telephone calls; email summaries after each contact) elements. Sitting time was measured using activPAL3TM activity monitors over seven days. Primary outcomes were changes in minutes/day spent sitting (including time accumulated in prolonged sitting bouts ≥30 minutes), standing, and stepping at the workplace and during all waking hours from baseline to four weeks. Analyses were by linear regression adjusted for baseline values (ANCOVA); significance level = 0.05, two-tailed. Results: At baseline, the overall mean for workplace sitting was 317 [SD 61] minutes/day, with much of this sitting time (110 [69] minutes/day) accrued in prolonged bouts. The intervention group (relative to the comparison group) significantly reduced sitting time at both the workplace (mean change [95% CI]: -128 [-162, -94] minutes/day) and across all waking hours (-78 [-120, -36] minutes/day). Reductions in workplace sitting were primarily driven by a reduction in sitting time accrued in prolonged bouts (-70 [103, -37] minutes/day). Workplace sitting was almost exclusively replaced by standing (+129 [+96, + 162] minutes/day) with minimal changes to stepping time (-1 [-7, + 5] minutes/day). Discussion: This integrated intervention, combining organizational, environmental, and individual elements, contributed to a significant reduction in objectively-measured sitting time in office workers. Cluster-randomized trials with larger, more representative samples and longer-term follow-ups are needed to determine the health and work-related benefits of reduced workplace sitting. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2012.11.482
J. Bort Roig 1,∗ , A. Puig Ribera 1 , N. Gilson 2 , Á. Gonzalez 3 , I. ˜ 5 Martínez Lemos 4 , M. Giné Garriga 5 , J. Fortuno 1
Universitat de Vic University of Queensland 3 Universidad del País Vasco 4 Universidad de Vigo 5 Universitat Ramon Llull-Blanquerna 2
Introduction: Higher levels of daily sitting time are associated with an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality. As a typical work day represents one-half of waking hours and because people spent an average of 10 hours sitting a day, workplace interventions aimed at reducing sitting time are needed. Currently, evidence on the effectiveness of workplace interventions for reducing sedentary behaviour is scarce. We evaluated the impact of a pedometer-based programme–based on Web technology–on employees’ sitting time two months after removing the intervention. Methods: Inactive white-collar employees (n = 264; age 42 ± 10 years; 171 women) undertook a 20-week programme at four Spanish Universities. A quasi-experimental design was used, with an additional Campus in each University acting as a control. Employees at these additional sites undertook key measures for comparative analyses (n = 135; control group; maintain normal behaviour) with the intervention group (n = 129). The intervention consisted of: a) a ramping phase (8 weeks) to progressively increase baseline step counts to 10.000 steps/workday by integrating active working tasks, short (10 ) and long (20 ) campus walking routes at low and moderate intensities, b) a maintenance phase (12 weeks) of the increased volume of step counts, with intensive researcher guidance (weekly emails). Adherence to behaviour change was assessed two months after completing the intervention. Employees used a pedometer and a Website that provided strategies, motivational materials and interactive features. Employees completed baseline and intervention measures at three points (after ramping, maintenance and adherence phase) of sitting time (domain and day-specific sitting time questionnaire). T Student tests analysed significant differences between groups. Results: Significant differences between groups (p < 0.05) were identified for a) TV sitting time at weekend with mean differences indicating a decrease of 27 and 25 minutes on the maintenance and adherence phase respectively, b) transport sitting time during work days with mean differences indicating a 10 minutes decrease on the adherence phase, (c) total sitting time during work days with mean differences indicating a 38 minutes decrease on the ramping phase. Small, non-significant changes were found for occupational sitting time. Conclusion: Our workplace pedometer-based programme decreased employee sitting times but not at work, which was our main purpose. This data suggests that employees could not integrate the strategies into their working routines but integrated them outside work instead, facilitating meaningful behaviour change in some specific sitting domains. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2012.11.483