Understanding diabetes risk in the Y Community of Greater Brisbane: Findings from a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: This cross-sectional study aimed to understand the need and desire for a diabetes prevention program within the Y (formerly YMCA: Young Men's Christian Association) of the Greater Brisbane region, Queensland, Australia. METHODS: An anonymous online survey was distributed (March-April 2023) by The Y Queensland targeting adults within the Greater Brisbane Y community. Data were collected on Y membership and branch attended, postcode, diabetes risk in the next 5 years (low, medium, or high), and interest in participation in a diabetes prevention program. Data were analysed via descriptives and cross tabulation with statistical significance considered at p < .05. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 575) were primarily female (65%), attending a Y branch located in the outer city (51%), and aged under 55 years (68%). Twenty Y sites were represented, with a mix of inner-city, outer-city, and regional areas. Overall, 46% (n = 241/530) of respondents were at high diabetes risk, with those living in relatively socio-economically disadvantaged areas more likely (p < .001) to be at high-risk (57%) than intermediate (26%) or low-risk (18%). Most (68%) respondents were interested/potentially interested in program participation; those at high risk of developing diabetes in the next 5 years were most interested (55%). CONCLUSIONS: The Y in Greater Brisbane may provide a suitable setting to host a community-based diabetes prevention program. Locations outside the inner city should be prioritised to target those who are relatively socio-economically disadvantaged to align with higher need and demand. SO WHAT?: Findings inform the implementation and prioritisation of a community-delivered diabetes prevention program.

Pilot implementation and evaluation of the Sit-Stand e-Guide: an e-training program on the use of sit-stand workstations.

The 'Sit-Stand e-Guide' e-training program, designed to promote appropriate use of sit-stand workstations (SSWs), was evaluated for usability, acceptability and impact on various outcomes among SSW users. Participants from a large municipal organisation (25% male; mean age 45 [SD = 10.6] years) completed questionnaires pre-training (T0, n = 57), immediately post-training (T1, n = 50), and four weeks (T2, n = 46: primary endpoint) and twelve months later (T3, n = 30). High usability, acceptability and usefulness scores were reported at T1. Median [IQR] knowledge (4.4/5 [0.9]) and confidence (4.6/5 [1.0]) significantly increased at T1 compared to baseline (2.8 [1.2]; 3.3 [1.4]) and maintained at T2 and T3. At T2, mean [SD] sitting time (5.3 [1.2] h/workday) and low back discomfort (2.4 [2.3]) significantly decreased compared to baseline (6.1 [1.3] h; 3.4 [2.5] discomfort), SSW usage increased (1.4 [1.4]-2.8 [1.7] transitions), with no significant changes in work performance. Some behavioural changes were sustained at T3. The Sit-Stand e-Guide was acceptable and effective; evaluation across diverse workplaces and workers is now needed.

This study evaluated a novel, evidence-based e-training program to support the appropriate use of sit-stand workstations. The Sit-Stand e-Guide showed high usability, acceptability and effectiveness in enhancing workers' knowledge and awareness of sedentary behaviour and the use of their sit-stand workstation. It also improved sit/stand behaviour and low back discomfort. However, for long-term benefits, yearly refresher training is recommended.

Associations of 24 h time-use compositions of sitting, standing, physical activity and sleeping with optimal cardiometabolic risk and glycaemic control: The Maastricht Study.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The associations of sitting, standing, physical activity and sleep with cardiometabolic health and glycaemic control markers are interrelated. We aimed to identify 24 h time-use compositions associated with optimal metabolic and glycaemic control and determine whether these varied by diabetes status. METHODS: Thigh-worn activPAL data from 2388 participants aged 40-75 years (48.7% female; mean age 60.1 [SD = 8.1] years; n=684 with type 2 diabetes) in The Maastricht Study were examined. Compositional isometric log ratios were generated from mean 24 h time use (sitting, standing, light-intensity physical activity [LPA], moderate-to-vigorous physical activity [MVPA] and sleeping) and regressed with outcomes of waist circumference, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2 h plasma glucose, HbA1c, the Matsuda index expressed as z scores, and with a clustered cardiometabolic risk score. Overall analyses were adjusted for demographics, smoking, dietary intake and diabetes status, and interaction by diabetes status was examined separately. The estimated difference when substituting 30 min of one behaviour with another was determined with isotemporal substitution. To identify optimal time use, all combinations of 24 h compositions possible within the study footprint (1st-99th percentile of each behaviour) were investigated to determine those cross-sectionally associated with the most-optimal outcome (top 5%) for each outcome measure. RESULTS: Compositions lower in sitting time and with greater standing time, physical activity and sleeping had the most beneficial associations with outcomes. Associations were stronger in participants with type 2 diabetes (p<0.05 for interactions), with larger estimated benefits for waist circumference, FPG and HbA1c when sitting was replaced by LPA or MVPA in those with type 2 diabetes vs the overall sample. The mean (range) optimal compositions of 24 h time use, considering all outcomes, were 6 h (range 5 h 40 min-7 h 10 min) for sitting, 5 h 10 min (4 h 10 min-6 h 10 min) for standing, 2 h 10 min (2 h-2 h 20 min) for LPA, 2 h 10 min (1 h 40 min-2 h 20 min) for MVPA and 8 h 20 min (7 h 30 min-9 h) for sleeping. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Shorter sitting time and more time spent standing, undergoing physical activity and sleeping are associated with preferable cardiometabolic health. The substitutions of behavioural time use were significantly stronger in their associations with glycaemic control in those with type 2 diabetes compared with those with normoglycaemic metabolism, especially when sitting time was balanced with greater physical activity.

Co-design and development of the sit-stand e-guide: An e-training program for the optimal use of sit-stand workstations.

This paper describes the co-design and development process of an evidence-informed e-training program (Sit-Stand e-Guide) to support the safe and optimal use of sit-stand workstations from ergonomics and behavioural change perspectives. Using an instructional system design process, supported by a participatory design approach, data was collected through three workshops with workplace consumers (staff [n = 5] and managers [n = 5]), and subject matter experts (n = 5). Content and learning activities were developed based on behaviour change principles and optimal pedagogy. Key topics identified for the e-training were sedentary behaviour and health; workstation set-up; and strategies for behaviour change. Learning activities (scenarios and reflection) to enhance knowledge retention and skills implementation and an interactive one-page guide on completion were included in the e-training. The relevance and usefulness of the training prototype were reviewed through one-to-one think-aloud sessions with the workshop consumers (n = 5) and external health and safety professionals (n = 5) receiving positive feedback. The Sit-Stand e-Guide is readily available for workplace implementation and evaluation. This paper serves as a practical guide for future training development.

Participant and workplace champion experiences of an intervention designed to reduce sitting time in desk-based workers: SMART work & life.

BACKGROUND: A cluster randomised controlled trial demonstrated the effectiveness of the SMART Work & Life (SWAL) behaviour change intervention, with and without a height-adjustable desk, for reducing sitting time in desk-based workers. Staff within organisations volunteered to be trained to facilitate delivery of the SWAL intervention and act as workplace champions. This paper presents the experiences of these champions on the training and intervention delivery, and from participants on their intervention participation. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative feedback from workplace champions on their training session was collected. Participants provided quantitative feedback via questionnaires at 3 and 12 month follow-up on the intervention strategies (education, group catch ups, sitting less challenges, self-monitoring and prompts, and the height-adjustable desk [SWAL plus desk group only]). Interviews and focus groups were also conducted at 12 month follow-up with workplace champions and participants respectively to gather more detailed feedback. Transcripts were uploaded to NVivo and the constant comparative approach informed the analysis of the interviews and focus groups. RESULTS: Workplace champions rated the training highly with mean scores ranging from 5.3/6 to 5.7/6 for the eight parts. Most participants felt the education increased their awareness of the health consequences of high levels of sitting (SWAL: 90.7%; SWAL plus desk: 88.2%) and motivated them to change their sitting time (SWAL: 77.5%; SWAL plus desk: 85.77%). A high percentage of participants (70%) reported finding the group catch up session helpful and worthwhile. However, focus groups highlighted mixed responses to the group catch-up sessions, sitting less challenges and self-monitoring intervention components. Participants in the SWAL plus desk group felt that having a height-adjustable desk was key in changing their behaviour, with intrinsic as well as time based factors reported as key influences on the height-adjustable desk usage. In both intervention groups, participants reported a range of benefits from the intervention including more energy, less fatigue, an increase in focus, alertness, productivity and concentration as well as less musculoskeletal problems (SWAL plus desk group only). Work-related, interpersonal, personal attributes, physical office environment and physical barriers were identified as barriers when trying to sit less and move more. CONCLUSIONS: Workplace champion and participant feedback on the intervention was largely positive but it is clear that different behaviour change strategies worked for different people indicating that a 'one size fits all' approach may not be appropriate for this type of intervention. The SWAL intervention could be tested in a broader range of organisations following a few minor adaptations based on the champion and participant feedback. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISCRCTN registry (ISRCTN11618007).

Implementation and engagement of the SMART Work & Life sitting reduction intervention: an exploratory analysis on intervention effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: To enhance the impact of interventions, it is important to understand how intervention engagement relates to study outcomes. We report on the level of implementation and engagement with the SMART Work & Life (SWAL) programme (delivered with (SWAL plus desk) and without a height-adjustable desk (SWAL)) and explore the effects of different levels of this on change in daily sitting time in comparison to the control group. METHODS: The extent of intervention delivery by workplace champions and the extent of engagement by champions and participants (staff) with each intervention activity was assessed by training attendance logs, workplace champion withdrawal dates, intervention activities logs and questionnaires. These data were used to assess whether a cluster met defined criteria for low, medium, or high implementation and engagement or none of these. Mixed effects linear regression analyses tested whether change in sitting time varied by: (i) the number of intervention activities implemented and engaged with, and (ii) the percentage of implementation and engagement with all intervention strategies. RESULTS: Workplace champions were recruited for all clusters, with 51/52 (98%) attending training. Overall, 12/27 (44.4%) SWAL and 9/25 (36.0%) SWAL plus desk clusters implemented all main intervention strategies. Across remaining clusters, the level of intervention implementation varied. Those in the SWAL (n = 8 (29.6%) clusters, 80 (32.1%) participants) and SWAL plus desk (n = 5 (20.0%) clusters, 41 (17.1%) participants) intervention groups who implemented and engaged with the most intervention strategies and had the highest percentage of cluster implementation and engagement with all intervention strategies sat for 30.9 (95% CI -53.9 to -7.9, p = 0.01) and 75.6 (95% CI -103.6 to -47.7, p < 0.001) fewer minutes/day respectively compared to the control group at 12 month follow up. These differences were larger than the complete case analysis. The differences in sitting time observed for the medium and low levels were similar to the complete case analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Most intervention strategies were delivered to some extent across the clusters although there was large variation. Superior effects for sitting reduction were seen for those intervention groups who implemented and engaged with the most intervention components and had the highest level of cluster implementation and engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN11618007. Registered on 24 January 2018. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTNISRCTN11618007 .

A multicomponent intervention to reduce daily sitting time in office workers: the SMART Work & Life three-arm cluster RCT.

Background: Office workers spend 70-85% of their time at work sitting. High levels of sitting have been linked to poor physiological and psychological health. Evidence shows the need for fully powered randomised controlled trials, with long-term follow-up, to test the effectiveness of interventions to reduce sitting time. Objective: Our objective was to test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the SMART Work & Life intervention, delivered with and without a height-adjustable workstation, compared with usual practice at 12-month follow-up. Design: A three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting: Councils in England. Participants: Office workers. Intervention: SMART Work & Life is a multicomponent intervention that includes behaviour change strategies, delivered by workplace champions. Clusters were randomised to (1) the SMART Work & Life intervention, (2) the SMART Work & Life intervention with a height-adjustable workstation (i.e. SMART Work & Life plus desk) or (3) a control group (i.e. usual practice). Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 12 months. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was device-assessed daily sitting time compared with usual practice at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included sitting, standing, stepping time, physical activity, adiposity, blood pressure, biochemical measures, musculoskeletal issues, psychosocial variables, work-related health, diet and sleep. Cost-effectiveness and process evaluation data were collected. Results: A total of 78 clusters (756 participants) were randomised [control, 26 clusters (n = 267); SMART Work & Life only, 27 clusters (n = 249); SMART Work & Life plus desk, 25 clusters (n = 240)]. At 12 months, significant differences between groups were found in daily sitting time, with participants in the SMART Work & Life-only and SMART Work & Life plus desk arms sitting 22.2 minutes per day (97.5% confidence interval -38.8 to -5.7 minutes/day; p = 0.003) and 63.7 minutes per day (97.5% confidence interval -80.0 to -47.4 minutes/day; p < 0.001), respectively, less than the control group. Participants in the SMART Work & Life plus desk arm sat 41.7 minutes per day (95% confidence interval -56.3 to -27.0 minutes/day; p < 0.001) less than participants in the SMART Work & Life-only arm. Sitting time was largely replaced by standing time, and changes in daily behaviour were driven by changes during work hours on workdays. Behaviour changes observed at 12 months were similar to 3 months. At 12 months, small improvements were seen for stress, well-being and vigour in both intervention groups, and for pain in the lower extremity and social norms in the SMART Work & Life plus desk group. Results from the process evaluation supported these findings, with participants reporting feeling more energised, alert, focused and productive. The process evaluation also showed that participants viewed the intervention positively; however, the extent of engagement varied across clusters. The average cost of SMART Work & Life only and SMART Work & Life plus desk was £80.59 and £228.31 per participant, respectively. Within trial, SMART Work & Life only had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,091 per quality-adjusted life-year, with SMART Work & Life plus desk being dominated. Over a lifetime, SMART Work & Life only and SMART Work & Life plus desk had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £4985 and £13,378 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. Limitations: The study was carried out in one sector, limiting generalisability. Conclusions: The SMART Work & Life intervention, provided with and without a height-adjustable workstation, was successful in changing sitting time. Future work: There is a need for longer-term follow-up, as well as follow-up within different organisations. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11618007.

Office workers spend a large proportion of their day sitting. High levels of sitting have been linked to diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and some cancers. The SMART Work & Life intervention is designed to reduce office workers' sitting time inside and outside work. The SMART Work & Life intervention involves organisational, environmental, group and individual strategies to encourage a reduction in sitting time and was designed to be delivered with and without a height-adjustable workstation (which allows the user to switch between sitting and standing while working). To test whether or not the SMART Work & Life intervention worked, we recruited 756 office workers from councils in Leicester/Leicestershire, Greater Manchester and Liverpool, UK. Participants were from 78 office groups. One-third of the participants received the intervention, one-third received the intervention with a height-adjustable workstation and one-third were a control group (and carried on as usual). Workplace champions in each office group were given training and resources to deliver the intervention. Data were collected at the start of the study, with follow-up measurements at 3 and 12 months. We measured sitting time using a small device worn on the thigh and collected data on weight, body fat, blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol levels. We asked participants about their health and work and spoke to participants to find out what they thought of the intervention. Our results showed that participants who received the intervention without workstation sat for 22 minutes less per day, and participants who received the intervention with workstation sat for 64 minutes less per day, than participants in the control group. Levels of stress, well-being, vigour (i.e. personal and emotional energy and cognitive liveliness) and pain in the lower extremity appeared to improve in the intervention groups. Participants viewed the intervention positively and reported several benefits, such as feeling more energised, alert, focused and productive; however, the extent to which participants engaged with the intervention varied across groups.

Changes in Desk-Based Workers' Sitting, Standing, and Stepping Time: Short- and Longer-Term Effects on Musculoskeletal Pain.

PURPOSE: Sitting at work can be associated with musculoskeletal pain, but the effect of reductions in sitting is not well understood. We examined relationships with musculoskeletal pain of changes in sitting, standing, stepping, and short and long bouts of these behaviors. METHODS: Analyses pooled data from 224 desk workers (68.4% women; mean ± SD age = 45.5 ± 9.4 yr; body mass index = 28.1 ± 6.1 kg⋅m -2 ) in intervention trial. Device-assessed (activPAL3) sitting, standing, and stepping time and multisite musculoskeletal pain (Nordic Questionnaire; 12 body areas) were assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 12 months. Compositional data analyses in linear mixed-effects regressions examined relationships within 16 waking hours of the behaviors and their short and long bouts, with changes from baseline in acute and chronic multisite musculoskeletal pain at 3 and 12 months. Analyses were adjusted for initial group randomization and relevant covariates. RESULTS: At 3 months, increased standing relative to changes in other compositions was significantly associated with increased multisite musculoskeletal pain (acute: ß = 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.10 to 2.98; chronic: ß = 1.49, 95% CI = 0.12 to 2.83). By contrast, increased stepping relative to changes in other compositions was significantly associated with reduced multisite musculoskeletal pain (acute: ß = -1.49, 95% CI = -2.97 to -0.02; chronic: ß = -1.87, 95% CI = -3.75 to -0.01). Neither sitting reduction relative to changes in other compositions nor changes in short bouts relative to long bouts of the behaviors were significantly associated with multisite musculoskeletal pain changes. At 12 months, there were no significant associations for any of the compositional changes. CONCLUSIONS: In the short term, while increasing standing with reduced sitting time can be unfavorable, concurrently increasing stepping could potentially reduce musculoskeletal pain. In the longer term, musculoskeletal pain may not be increased by moderate reductions in sitting time through spending more time standing or stepping.

The Importance of Research on Occupational Sedentary Behaviour and Activity Right Now.

The workplace has been identified as a key setting for public health interventions to 'promote and maintain the highest degree of physical, mental and social well-being of workers in all occupations' by the World Health Organisation [...].

The Cost-Effectiveness of the SMART Work & Life Intervention for Reducing Sitting Time.

Sedentary behaviours continue to increase and are associated with heightened risks of morbidity and mortality. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of SMART Work & Life (SWAL), an intervention designed to reduce sitting time inside and outside of work, both with (SWAL-desk) and without (SWAL-only) a height-adjustable workstation compared to usual practice (control) for UK office workers. Health outcomes were assessed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and costs in pound sterling (2019-2020). Discounted costs and QALYs were estimated using regression methods with multiply imputed data from the SMART Work & Life trial. Absenteeism, productivity and wellbeing measures were also evaluated. The average cost of SWAL-desk was £228.31 and SWAL-only £80.59 per office worker. Within the trial, SWAL-only was more effective and costly compared to control (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER): £12,091 per QALY) while SWAL-desk was dominated (least effective and most costly). However, over a lifetime horizon, both SWAL-only and SWAL-desk were more effective and more costly than control. Comparing SWAL-only to control generated an ICER of £4985 per QALY. SWAL-desk was more effective and costly than SWAL-only, generating an ICER of £13,378 per QALY. Findings were sensitive to various worker, intervention, and extrapolation-related factors. Based on a lifetime horizon, SWAL interventions appear cost-effective for office-workers conditional on worker characteristics, intervention cost and longer-term maintenance in sitting time reductions.

Effectiveness of an intervention for reducing sitting time and improving health in office workers: three arm cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention, with and without a height adjustable desk, on daily sitting time, and to investigate the relative effectiveness of the two interventions, and the effectiveness of both interventions on physical behaviours and physical, biochemical, psychological, and work related health and performance outcomes. DESIGN: Cluster three arm randomised controlled trial with follow-up at three and 12 months. SETTING: Local government councils in Leicester, Liverpool, and Greater Manchester, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 78 clusters including 756 desk based employees in defined offices, departments, or teams from two councils in Leicester, three in Greater Manchester, and one in Liverpool. INTERVENTIONS: Clusters were randomised to one of three conditions: the SMART Work and Life (SWAL) intervention, the SWAL intervention with a height adjustable desk (SWAL plus desk), or control (usual practice). MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was daily sitting time, assessed by accelerometry, at 12 month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were accelerometer assessed sitting, prolonged sitting, standing and stepping time, and physical activity calculated over any valid day, work hours, workdays, and non-workdays, self-reported lifestyle behaviours, musculoskeletal problems, cardiometabolic health markers, work related health and performance, fatigue, and psychological measures. RESULTS: Mean age of participants was 44.7 years, 72.4% (n=547) were women, and 74.9% (n=566) were white. Daily sitting time at 12 months was significantly lower in the intervention groups (SWAL -22.2 min/day, 95% confidence interval -38.8 to -5.7 min/day, P=0.003; SWAL plus desk -63.7 min/day, -80.1 to -47.4 min/day, P<0.001) compared with the control group. The SWAL plus desk intervention was found to be more effective than SWAL at changing sitting time (-41.7 min/day, -56.3 to -27.0 min/day, P<0.001). Favourable differences in sitting and prolonged sitting time at three and 12 month follow-ups for both intervention groups and for standing time for the SWAL plus desk group were observed during work hours and on workdays. Both intervention groups were associated with small improvements in stress, wellbeing, and vigour, and the SWAL plus desk group was associated with improvements in pain in the lower extremity, social norms for sitting and standing at work, and support. CONCLUSIONS: Both SWAL and SWAL plus desk were associated with a reduction in sitting time, although the addition of a height adjustable desk was found to be threefold more effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN11618007.

Applying a User Centred Design Approach to Optimise a Workplace Initiative for Wide-Scale Implementation.

Translation of an effective research intervention into a program able to be implemented in practice typically requires adaptations to ensure the outcomes can be achieved within the applied setting. User centred design (UCD) methodologies can support these iterative adaptations, with this approach being particularly well suited to peer-led interventions, due to a focus on usability. We describe and reflect on the UCD approach that was applied to optimise an online, peer-led workplace health promotion initiative (BeUpstanding: ACTRN12617000682347) to be suitable for wide-scale implementation and evaluation. Optimisation was aligned against the indicators of the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance) framework, with UCD methodologies (discovery interviews, persona and scenario mapping, facilitated workshops, surveys and prototyping) employed to enhance the program according to all RE-AIM dimensions. The core team (content experts, implementation scientist, interaction designer, software developer, business developer) worked closely with policy and practice partners and end users (workplace champions, management and staff) to iteratively develop and test across the RE-AIM indicators. This description and reflection of the process of applying UCD and the RE-AIM framework to the optimisation of BeUpstanding is intended to provide guidance for other behaviour change research adaptations into practice.

Sitting less and moving more for improved metabolic and brain health in type 2 diabetes: 'OPTIMISE your health' trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines recommend that adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) sit less and move more throughout the day. The 18-month OPTIMISE Your Health Clinical Trial was developed to support desk-based workers with T2D achieve these recommendations. The two-arm protocol consists of an intervention and control arms. The intervention arm receives 6 months health coaching, a sit-stand desktop workstation and an activity tracker, followed by 6 months of text message support, then 6 months maintenance. The control arm receives a delayed modified intervention after 12 months of usual care. This paper describes the methods of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention, compared to a delayed intervention control. METHODS: This is a two-arm RCT being conducted in Melbourne, Australia. Desk-based workers (≥0.8 full-time equivalent) aged 35-65 years, ambulatory, and with T2D and managed glycaemic control (6.5-10.0% HbA1c), are randomised to the multicomponent intervention (target n = 125) or delayed-intervention control (target n = 125) conditions. All intervention participants receive 6 months of tailored health coaching assisting them to "sit less" and "move more" at work and throughout the day, supported by a sit-stand desktop workstation and an activity tracker (Fitbit). Participants receive text message-based extended care for a further 6-months (6-12 months) followed by 6-months of non-contact (12-18 months: maintenance). Delayed intervention occurs at 12-18 months for the control arm. Assessments are undertaken at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 15 and 18-months. Primary outcomes are activPAL-measured sitting time (h/16 h day), glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c; %, mmol/mol) and, cognitive function measures (visual learning and new memory; Paired Associates Learning Total Errors [adjusted]). Secondary, exploratory, and process outcomes will also be collected throughout the trial. DISCUSSION: The OPTIMISE Your Health trial will provide unique insights into the benefits of an intervention aimed at sitting less and moving more in desk-bound office workers with T2D, with outcomes relevant to glycaemic control, and to cardiometabolic and brain health. Findings will contribute new insights to add to the evidence base on initiating and maintaining behaviour change with clinical populations and inform practice in diabetes management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTRN12618001159246 .

Dietary and Physical Activity Changes and Adherence to WCRF/AICR Cancer Prevention Recommendations following a Remotely Delivered Weight Loss Intervention for Female Breast Cancer Survivors: The Living Well after Breast Cancer Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Diet, exercise, and weight management are key in improving outcomes for breast cancer survivors, with international recommendations for cancer survivors relating to these behaviors. However, few behavioral interventions have reported outcomes aligned specifically with these recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a remotely delivered weight loss intervention vs usual care for female breast cancer survivors, on changes in multiple diet and physical activity behaviors. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial with assessments at study baseline, 6-, 12-, and 18 months (ie, mid-intervention, post-intervention, and non-contact follow-up). PARTICIPANTS/SETTING: Participants were recruited between October 2012 and December 2014 through hospitals in Brisbane, Australia, and the state-based cancer registry. Eligible participants (women aged 18 to 75 years with body mass index 25 to 45 kg/m2 who were diagnosed with stage I through III breast cancer during previous 2 years) were randomly allocated to intervention (n = 79) or usual care (n = 80). INTERVENTION: Participants randomized to the intervention group received 22 counseling telephone calls targeting diet and physical activity aimed at achieving 5% to 10% weight loss, and optional text messages, over 12 months. Usual care participants received their standard medical care and brief feedback following each assessment, which was similar to that provided to intervention participants with the exception that usual care participants' results were not compared with national and study recommendations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dietary intake (24-hour recalls), physical activity (hip-worn GT3X+ accelerometer [Actigraph]), sitting time (thigh-worn activPAL3 [PAL Technologies Limited), and adherence to World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) recommendations for cancer survivors (0 to 7 score) were measured at each assessment, with data collected between November 2012 and October 2016. STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: Intervention effects were assessed by linear mixed models, accounting for repeated measures and baseline values. Significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: At baseline, participants were aged 55 ± 9 years, with a body mass index of 31.4 ± 5.0 kg/m2, 10.7 ± 5.0 months postdiagnosis, and primarily non-minority. At baseline, only 8% (n = 12) of participants met ≥5 out of seven WCRF/AICR recommendations (WCRF/AICR adherence score = 3.8 ± 1.0). At 12 months, significant intervention effects were observed in walking/running (+21 minutes/week; 95% CI 4 to 38) and WCRF/AICR adherence scores (+0.3 points; 95% CI 0.0 to 0.6) only. At 18 months, significant intervention effects were observed for energy intake (-229 kcal/day energy; 95% CI -373 to -84), total fat (-10 g/day; 95% CI -18 to -2), and saturated fat (-5 g/day; 95% CI -9 to -1), and were sustained for WCRF/AICR adherence scores (+0.5 points; 95% CI 0.2 to 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: This remotely delivered weight loss intervention led to sustained improvements in WCRF/AICR adherence scores, and some improvements in diet and physical activity. These findings provide support for the health benefit of programs targeting lifestyle behaviors in line with cancer survivor recommendations, and the potential for dissemination of such programs for women following treatment for early-stage breast cancer.

Factors impacting workplace investment in sit-stand workstations from the perspective of purchasing decision-makers.

This explanatory sequential mixed-method study explored the factors associated with the investment (or not) in sit-stand workstations (SSWs) and alternative initiatives to reduce prolonged sitting at work from the perspective of furniture purchasing decision-makers in Australian workplaces. Participants (n = 270) from >200 organisations across 19 industry sectors completed an online survey. Seven interviews were conducted in a sub-sample of participants from organisations without SSWs. The majority (80%) of workplaces reported having invested in SSWs. Workplaces without SSWs, opposed to those with SSWs, were more likely to be private (79.6% vs. 43.5%), of small/medium size (70.4% vs. 35.6%) and without a wellness program (57.4% vs. 22.2%) (all p < 0.05). Financial implications were the main reason for not investing in SSWs. Exercise and stretch breaks were alternative initiatives to reducing sedentary behaviour at work. Better evidence on the return on investment is needed to support purchasing decisions on SSWs.

Using touchscreen mobile devices-when, where and how: a one-week field study.

This cross-sectional study explored the objectively measured Touchscreen Mobile Device (TSMD) use in free-living conditions. Data on TSMD use, gross body posture (lying, sitting, standing, stepping), and location of use (workplace, home, other) were collected over seven consecutive days from 54 adults (mean ± SD, 38 ± 10 years). The average duration of TSMD use was 152 ± 91 min/day, with a TSMD engagement of 51 ± 35 times/day. Participants under 30 years spent significantly more time on their TSMD, averaging 230 ± 108 min/day. By location, 54 ± 17% of use occurred at home and 24 ± 15% at work. The most common posture adopted during any TSMD use was sitting (77 ± 5 2 min/day), with participants also spending considerable time lying down in the home environment (39 ± 49 min/day). These findings provide valuable insights into how adults are using TSMDs, including the postures and locations of use. Further research is needed on the health and wellbeing implications of these usage patterns. Practitioner summary: This study explored Touchscreen Mobile Device (TSMD) use in free-living conditions among 54 adults (mean ± standard deviation, 38 ± 10 years). Participants under 30 years spent significantly more time on their devices. More than half of the time spent using TSMD occurred at home while sitting and lying down.Abbreviations: TSMD: touchscreen mobile device; SD: standard deviation; MSD: musculoskeletal disorder; HDR: higher degree by research; SEES: School of Earth and Environmental Sciences; UK: The United Kingdom; USA: United States of America; SAS: statistical analysis system; ANOVA: analysis of variance; SPSS: statistical package for the social sciences; h: hour; min/d: minutes per day; d: day; ICC: intraclass correlation; CI: confidence interval; min: minute; GPS: global positioning systemsHighlightsTouchscreen mobile device use and gross body posture were quantified objectively.The most common postures for touchscreen mobile device use were lying and sitting.Touchscreen mobile devices were used around twice as much at home than at work.Use at home, with a predominance of the lying posture, needs further investigation.

CHAP-Adult: A Reliable and Valid Algorithm to Classify Sitting and Measure Sitting Patterns Using Data From Hip-Worn Accelerometers in Adults Aged 35.

Background: Hip-worn accelerometers are commonly used, but data processed using the 100 counts per minute cut point do not accurately measure sitting patterns. We developed and validated a model to accurately classify sitting and sitting patterns using hip-worn accelerometer data from a wide age range of older adults. Methods: Deep learning models were trained with 30-Hz triaxial hip-worn accelerometer data as inputs and activPAL sitting/nonsitting events as ground truth. Data from 981 adults aged 35-99 years from cohorts in two continents were used to train the model, which we call CHAP-Adult (Convolutional Neural Network Hip Accelerometer Posture-Adult). Validation was conducted among 419 randomly selected adults not included in model training. Results: Mean errors (activPAL - CHAP-Adult) and 95% limits of agreement were: sedentary time -10.5 (-63.0, 42.0) min/day, breaks in sedentary time 1.9 (-9.2, 12.9) breaks/day, mean bout duration -0.6 (-4.0, 2.7) min, usual bout duration -1.4 (-8.3, 5.4) min, alpha .00 (-.04, .04), and time in ≥30-min bouts -15.1 (-84.3, 54.1) min/day. Respective mean (and absolute) percent errors were: -2.0% (4.0%), -4.7% (12.2%), 4.1% (11.6%), -4.4% (9.6%), 0.0% (1.4%), and 5.4% (9.6%). Pearson's correlations were: .96, .92, .86, .92, .78, and .96. Error was generally consistent across age, gender, and body mass index groups with the largest deviations observed for those with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2. Conclusions: Overall, these strong validation results indicate CHAP-Adult represents a significant advancement in the ambulatory measurement of sitting and sitting patterns using hip-worn accelerometers. Pending external validation, it could be widely applied to data from around the world to extend understanding of the epidemiology and health consequences of sitting.

Contrasting compositions of sitting, standing, stepping, and sleeping time: associations with glycaemic outcome by diabetes risk.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that prolonged sitting and its adverse impact on glycaemic indicators appear to be proportional to the degree of insulin resistance. To investigate this finding in a free-living context, we aimed to examine associations of device-measured 24-h time-use compositions of sitting, standing, stepping, and sleeping with fasting glucose (FPG) and 2 h post-load glucose (2hPLG) levels, and to examine separately the associations with time-use compositions among those at lower and at higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Cross-sectional analyses examined thigh-worn inclinometer data (activPAL, 7 day, 24 h/day protocol) from 648 participants (aged 36-80 years) at either lower (< 39 mmol/mol; < 5.7% HbA1c) or higher (≥39 mmol/mol; ≥5.7% HbA1c) diabetes risk from the 2011-2012 Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle study. Multiple linear regression models were used to examine associations of differing compositions with FPG and 2hPLG, with time spent in each behaviour allowed to vary up to 60 min. RESULTS: In general, the associations with the FPG within the time-use compositions were small, with statistically significant associations observed for sitting and sleeping (in the lower diabetes risk group) and standing (in higher diabetes risk group) only. For 2hPLG, statistically significant associations were observed for stepping only, with findings similar between lower (ß = - 0.12 95%CI:-0.22, - 0.02) and higher (ß = - 0.13 95%CI:-0.26, - 0.01) risk groups. Varying the composition had minimal impact on FPG; however 1 h less sitting time and equivalent increase in standing time was associated with attenuated FPG levels in higher risk only (Δ FPG% = - 1.5 95%CI: - 2.4, - 0.5). Large differences in 2hPLG were observed for both groups when varying the composition. One hour less sitting with equivalent increase in stepping was associated with attenuated 2hPLG, with estimations similar in lower (Δ 2hPLG% = - 3.8 95%CI: - 7.3, - 0.2) and higher (Δ 2hPLG% = - 5.0 95%CI: - 9.7, - 0.0) risk for diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: In middle-aged and older adults, glycaemic control could be improved by reducing daily sitting time and replacing it with stepping. Standing could also be beneficial for those at higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.