Qualitative comparative analysis of the implementation fidelity of a workplace sedentary reduction intervention.

BACKGROUND: Stand and Move at Work was a 12-month, multicomponent, peer-led (intervention delivery personnel) worksite intervention to reduce sedentary time. Although successful, the magnitude of reduced sedentary time varied by intervention worksite. The purpose of this study was to use a qualitative comparative analysis approach to examine potential explanatory factors that could distinguish higher from lower performing worksites based on reduced sedentary time. METHODS: We assessed 12-month changes in employee sedentary time objectively using accelerometers at 12 worksites. We ranked worksites based on the magnitude of change in sedentary time and categorized sites as higher vs. lower performing. Guided by the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework, we created an indicator of intervention fidelity related to adherence to the protocol and competence of intervention delivery personnel (i.e., implementer). We then gathered information from employee interviews and surveys as well as delivery personnel surveys. These data were aggregated, entered into a truth table (i.e., a table containing implementation construct presence or absence), and used to examine differences between higher and lower performing worksites. RESULTS: There were substantive differences in the magnitude of change in sedentary time between higher (-75.2 min/8 h workday, CI95: -93.7, -56.7) and lower (-30.3 min/8 h workday, CI95: -38.3, -22.7) performing worksites. Conditions that were present in all higher performing sites included implementation of indoor/outdoor walking route accessibility, completion of delivery personnel surveys, and worksite culture supporting breaks (i.e., adherence to protocol). A similar pattern was found for implementer willingness to continue role and employees using face-to-face interaction/stair strategies (i.e., delivery personnel competence). However, each of these factors were also present in some of the lower performing sites suggesting we were unable to identify sufficient conditions to predict program success. CONCLUSIONS: Higher intervention adherence and implementer competence is necessary for greater program success. These findings illustrate the need for future research to identify what factors may influence intervention fidelity, and in turn, effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02566317 . Registered 2 October 2015, first participant enrolled 11 January 2016.

Cost and cost-effectiveness of the 'Stand and Move at Work' multicomponent intervention to reduce workplace sedentary time and cardiometabolic risk.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have reported the cost and cost-effectiveness of workplace interventions to reduce sedentary time. The purpose of this study was to complete an economic evaluation of a multilevel intervention to reduce sitting time and increase light-intensity physical activity (LPA) among employees. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective within-trial cost and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to compare a 12-month multilevel intervention with (STAND+) and without (MOVE+) a sit-stand workstation, across 24 worksites (N=630 employee participants) enrolled in a cluster randomized clinical trial. We estimated the intervention costs using activity-based costing strategy. The intervention costs were further expressed as per person and per worksite. CEA was conducted using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) metric, expressed as costs for additional unit of sitting time (minute/day), LPA (minutes/day), cardiometabolic risk score, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) increased/decreased at 12 months. We assessed the cost analysis and CEA from the organizational (ie, employer) perspective with a one-year time horizon. RESULTS: Total intervention costs were $134 and $72 per person, and $3939 and $1650 per worksite for the STAND+ (N worksites = 12; N employees = 354) and MOVE+ (N worksites = 12; N employees = 276) interventions, respectively. The ICER was $1 (95% CI $0.8-1.4) for each additional minute reduction of workplace sitting time (standardized to 8-hour workday); and $4656 per QALY gained at 12 months. There was a modest and non-significant change of loss of work productivity improvement (-0.03 hours, 95% CI -4.16-4.09 hours), which was associated with a $0.34 return for every $1 invested. CONCLUSIONS: The multi-level intervention with sit-stand workstations has the potential to be widely implemented to reduce workplace sitting time. Future research into work productivity outcomes in terms of cost-benefits for employers is warranted.

Improving Healthcare Worker Resilience and Well-Being During COVID-19 Using a Self-Directed E-Learning Intervention.

Introduction: High rates of burnout, depression, anxiety, and insomnia in healthcare workers responding to the COVID-19 pandemic have been reported globally. Methods: Responding to the crisis, the Foundation for Professional Development (FPD) developed an e-learning course to support healthcare worker well-being and resilience. A self-paced, asynchronous learning model was used as the training intervention. Each module included practical, skill-building activities. An outcome evaluation was conducted to determine if completing the course improved healthcare worker knowledge of and confidence in the learning outcomes of the course, their use of resilience-building behaviours, their resilience, and their well-being. A secondary objective was to explore if there were any associations between behaviours, resilience, and well-being. Participants completed pre- and post-course questionnaires to measure knowledge of and confidence in the learning outcomes, y, frequency of self-reported resilience-building behaviours, and levels of resilience (CD-RISC) and well-being (WHO-5). Results were analysed in STATA using paired T-tests, univariate and multivariate linear regression models. Results: Participants (n = 474; 77.6% female; 55.7% primary care) exhibited significant increases in knowledge, confidence, resilience-building behaviour, resilience, and well-being scores. Statistically significant improvements in the frequency of resilience-building behaviours led to significant improvements in resilience (0.25 points; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.43) and well-being (0.21 points; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.36). Increasing changes in well-being scores had a positive effect on change in resilience scores (ß = 0.20; 95% CI: 0.11, 0.29), and vice versa (ß = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.14, 0.41). Conclusion: A healthcare worker e-learning course can build knowledge and skills that may prompt changes in resilience-building behaviours and improvements in well-being and resilience scores. The findings suggest that e-learning courses may improve more than competency-based outcomes alone but further research is warranted to further explore these relationships.

Efficacy of the 'Stand and Move at Work' multicomponent workplace intervention to reduce sedentary time and improve cardiometabolic risk: a group randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Sedentary time is associated with chronic disease and premature mortality. We tested a multilevel workplace intervention with and without sit-stand workstations to reduce sedentary time and lower cardiometabolic risk. METHODS: Stand and Move at Work was a group (cluster) randomized trial conducted between January 2016 and December 2017 among full-time employees; ≥18 years; and in academic, industry/healthcare, and government worksites in Phoenix, Arizona and Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. Eligible worksites were randomized to (a) MOVE+, a multilevel intervention targeting reduction in sedentary time and increases in light physical activity (LPA); or (b) STAND+, the MOVE+ intervention along with sit-stand workstations to allow employees to sit or stand while working. The primary endpoints were objectively-measured workplace sitting and LPA at 12 months. The secondary endpoint was a clustered cardiometabolic risk score (blood pressure, glucose, insulin, triglycerides, and HDL-cholesterol) at 12 months. RESULTS: Worksites (N = 24; academic [n = 8], industry/healthcare [n = 8], and government [n = 8] sectors) and employees (N = 630; 27 ± 8 per worksite; 45 ± 11 years of age, 74% female) were enrolled. All worksites were retained and 487 participants completed the intervention and provided data for the primary endpoint. The adjusted between arm difference in sitting at 12 months was - 59.2 (CI: - 74.6,-43.8) min per 8 h workday, favoring STAND+, and in LPA at 12 months was + 2.2 (- 0.9,5.4) min per 8 h workday. Change in the clustered metabolic risk score was small and not statistically significant, but favored STAND+. In an exploratory subgroup of 95 participants with prediabetes or diabetes, the effect sizes were larger and clinically meaningful, all favoring STAND+, including blood glucose, triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, LDL-cholesterol, body weight, and body fat. CONCLUSIONS: Multilevel workplace interventions that include the use of sit-stand workstations are effective for large reductions in sitting time over 12 months. Among those with prediabetes or diabetes, clinical improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors and body weight may be realized. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02566317 . Registered 2 October 2015, first participant enrolled 11 January 2016.

The Perceived Value of Reducing Sedentary Behavior in the Truck Driving Population.

Purpose: To conduct rapid qualitative analysis early in the intervention design process to establish the perceived value of reducing sedentary behavior in the truck driver population. Methods: A rapid assessment process for qualitative data collection was used to examine managerial and employee perceptions quickly and iteratively to inform intervention design. Managerial insights were collected during semi-structured interviews and employee insights were collected via an online survey and focus group. Thematic analyses were guided by the constructs of the Health Belief Model to establish; (a) perceived susceptibility to the health problem; (b) perceived severity of the health problem; (c) perceived benefits of the potential solutions; (d) perceived barriers to adopting the recommended solution; (e) cues to action; and (f) self-efficacy. Results: Three managers (2 females; 1 male) participated in semi-structured interviews. Seven truck drivers (1 female; 6 males) took part in a focus group. Sixteen survey responses (all male, mean age 49.8 ± 12.4 years, 86% white Caucasian) were collected in total (11 paper based; 6 online). The most important managerial motivators for engagement in an intervention included; improved sleep, alertness and quality of life. The most important employee motivators included; stress reduction (3.3 ± 1.3), improved quality of life (3.3 ± 1.3) and alertness (3.2 ± 1.4). Managerial and employee perspectives indicated that sedentary behavior may be of lower priority than diet and exercise, and may not resonate with the truck driving population as a health risk. Conclusion: Application of the Health Belief Model indicated a disconnect between the researcher, managerial and employee perspective and the perceived value of a sedentary behavior reduction intervention. Within the truck driving population, researchers should endeavor to include safety as well as health outcomes, use multi-level strategies, design for outcomes of high perceived value and leverage health communication strategies to communicate benefits that resonate with the end-user.

Stand and Move at Work sedentary behavior questionnaire: validity and sensitivity to change.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the validity and sensitivity to change of a workplace questionnaire to assess sedentary behavior (SB) during and outside work. METHODS: Participants wore an activPAL and completed an SB questionnaire at two time points (baseline and 3-month follow-up). Ecological momentary assessments were used to assess workplace location (at desk vs. away from desk). Intraclass correlation coefficients, mean difference, root of mean square error, kappa agreement, and Bland-Altman plots assessed validity. Sensitivity to change after 3 months of intervention was assessed using the standardized effect size. RESULTS: Data from 546 participants (age = 45.1 ± 16.4 years, 24.9% males, 72.7% white) were analyzed. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.08 to 0.23. SB was overestimated d¯(95%CI)[] by 47.9 (39.2, 56.6) min during work hours but underestimated for both non-work hours and nonworkdays by -38.3 (-47.4, 29.1) and -106.7 (124.0, -89.5) min, respectively. Participants slightly underestimated SB by -3.4 (-12.6, 5.7)% when at their desk but overestimated SB by 2.8 (-2.4, 8.0)% when not at their desk. The questionnaire demonstrated similar standardized effect size (>0.6) to the activPAL for sedentary and standing time. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement between the questionnaire and activPAL was on par with other self-report measures. The questionnaire yielded valid estimates of at/away from desk SB and was sensitive to change.

Enrollment Strategies, Barriers to Participation, and Reach of a Workplace Intervention Targeting Sedentary Behavior.

PURPOSE: To review enrollment strategies, participation barriers, and program reach of a large, 2-year workplace intervention targeting sedentary behavior. APPROACH: Cross-sectional, retrospective review. SETTING: Twenty-four worksites balanced across academic, industry, and government sectors in Minneapolis/Saint Paul (Minnesota) and Phoenix (Arizona) regions. PARTICIPANTS: Full-time (≥30+ h/wk), sedentary office workers. METHODS: Reach was calculated as the proportion of eligible employees who enrolled in the intervention ([N enrolled/(proportion of eligible employees × N total employees)] × 100). Mean (1 standard deviation) and median worksite sizes were calculated at each enrollment step. Participation barriers and modifications were recorded by the research team. A survey was sent to a subset of nonparticipants (N = 57), and thematic analyses were conducted to examine reasons for nonparticipation, positive impacts, and negative experiences. RESULTS: Employer reach was 65% (56 worksites invited to participate; 66% eligible of 56 responses; 24 enrolled). Employee reach was 58% (1317 invited to participate, 83% eligible of 906 responses; 632 enrolled). Postrandomization, on average, 59% (15%) of the worksites participated. Eighteen modifications were developed to overcome participant-, context-, and research-related participation barriers. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of worksites and employees approached to participate in a sedentary behavior reduction intervention engaged in the study. Interventions that provide flexible enrollment, graded participant engagement options, and adopt a participant-centered approach may facilitate workplace intervention success.

The "House of Quality for Behavioral Science"-a user-centered tool to design behavioral interventions.

Within the behavioral field, a plethora of conceptual frameworks and tools have been developed to improve transition from efficacy to effectiveness trials; however, they are limited in their ability to support new, iterative intervention design decision-making methodologies beyond traditional randomized controlled trial design. Emerging theories suggest that researchers should employ engineering based user-centered design (UCD) methods to support more iterative intervention design decision-making in the behavioral field. We present, an adaptation of a UCD tool used in the engineering field-the Quality Function Deployment "House of Quality" correlation matrix, to support iterative intervention design decision-making and documentation for multicomponent behavioral interventions and factorial trial designs. We provide a detailed description of the adapted tool-"House of Quality for Behavioral Science", and a step-by-step use-case scenario to demonstrate the early identification of intervention flaws and prioritization of requirements. Four intervention design flaws were identified via the tool application. Completion of the relationship correlation matrix increased requirement ranking variance for the researcher (σ2 = 0.47 to 7.19) and participant (σ2 = 0.56 to 3.89) perspective. Requirement prioritization (ranking) was facilitated by factoring in the strength of the correlation between each perspective and corresponding importance. A correlational matrix tool such as the "House of Quality for Behavioral Science" may provide a structured, UCD approach that balances researcher and participant needs and identifies design flaws for pragmatic behavioral intervention design. This tool may support iterative design decision-making for multicomponent and factorial trial designs.

Using Point-of-Choice Prompts to Reduce Sedentary Behavior in Sit-Stand Workstation Users.

Introduction: Desk-based office workers are at occupational risk for poor health outcomes from excessive time spent sitting. Sit-stand workstations are used to mitigate sitting, but lack of workstation usage has been observed. Point-of-choice (PoC) prompts offer a complementary strategy for office workers to break up their sitting time. Study purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the preliminary efficacy, preference, and acceptability of a theory-driven (i.e., 40 unique prompts encompassing social cognitive theory; TD-PoC) and an atheoretical basic reminder PoC prompt intervention (R-PoC) on reducing sedentary behavior in office workers with self-reported low sit-stand workstation usage (≤4 h per day). Methods: In a cross-over design, participants (N = 19, 78.9% female, 39.4 ± 10.7 years of age) completed a 5-days no-prompt control condition followed by a random and counterbalanced assignment to one of the TD-PoC and R-PoC active conditions with a 1-week washout period between. Preliminary efficacy was assessed during work hours with the activPAL micro accelerometer. Preference was assessed prior to each active condition and acceptability was assessed following each active condition via questionnaire. Results: The R-PoC prompt condition significantly decreased sitting time (b[se] = -49.0 [20.8], p = 0.03) and increased standing time (b[se] = 49.8 [19.7], p = 0.02) and displayed a significant increase in sit-stand transitions (b[se] = 2.3 [1.1], p = 0.04), relative to no-prompt control. Both the R-PoC and TD-PoC prompt conditions significantly decreased time spent in prolonged sitting bouts at b[se] = -68.1 [27.8], (p = 0.02), (b[se] = -76.7 [27.1], p = 0.008) relative to no-prompt control. Overall, the TD-PoC prompt condition displayed higher preference and acceptability ratings; however, these differences were not significant (p's > 0.05). Conclusion: While the R-PoC prompt condition was slightly more efficacious than the TD-PoC prompt condition, the TD-PoC prompt condition was rated with higher preference and acceptability scores. Large variations between participants in preference, acceptability, and intervention feedback may indicate need for tailored messaging which may facilitate sustained use in the long-term.

Social ecological correlates of workplace sedentary behavior.

BACKGROUND: To identify social ecological correlates of objectively measured workplace sedentary behavior. METHODS: Participants from 24 worksites - across academic, industrial, and government sectors - wore an activPAL-micro accelerometer for 7-days (Jan-Nov 2016). Work time was segmented using daily logs. Sedentary behavior outcomes included time spent sitting, standing, in light intensity physical activity (LPA, stepping cadence <100 steps/min), and in prolonged sitting bouts (>30 min). Outcomes were standardized to an 8 h work day. Two electronic surveys were completed to derive individual (job type and work engagement), cultural (lunch away from the desk, walking at lunch and face-to-face interaction), physical (personal printer and office type) and organizational (sector) factors. Mixed-model analyses with worksite-level clustering were performed to examine multi-level associations. Secondary analyses examined job type and sector as moderators of these associations. All models were adjusted for age, race/ethnicity and gender. RESULTS: Participants (N = 478; 72% female; age: 45.0 ± 11.3 years; 77.8% non-Hispanic white) wore the activPAL-micro for 90.2 ± 15.5% of the reported workday. Walking at lunch was positively associated with LPA (5.0 ± 0.5 min/8 h, P < 0.001). Regular face-to-face interaction was negatively associated with prolonged sitting (-11.3 ± 4.8 min/8 h, P < 0.05). Individuals in private offices sat more (20.1 ± 9.1 min/8 h, P < 0.05), stood less (-21.5 ± 8.8 min/8 h, P < 0.05), and engaged in more prolonged sitting (40.9 ± 11.2 min/8 h, P < 0.001) than those in public office space. These associations were further modified by job type and sector. CONCLUSIONS: Work-specific individual, cultural, physical and organizational factors are associated with workplace sedentary behavior. Associations vary by job type and sector and should be considered in the design of workplace interventions to reduce sedentary behavior. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial No. NCT02566317 ; Registered Sept 22nd 2015.

Feasibility and Parental Acceptability of an 8-Week, Slow-Speed, High-Intensity, Community-Based Resistance Training Program for Preadolescent Children.

High-intensity resistance training (RT) shows promise for improved cardiometabolic health in children. Achieving high-intensity RT safely is a challenge for community-based programs because of parental concerns and group engagement. Twenty preadolescent children completed an 8-week, twice per week program using slow speed to achieve high-intensity RT. Parent and child surveys were conducted to measure acceptability and effectiveness. Child fitness levels were assessed, and fasting blood draws and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry were performed on a subset population. Perceived RT safety, self-efficacy, body composition, waist circumference, and fitness tests exhibited significant improvements. Using slow speed to achieve high-intensity RT may provide a safe and effective community-based alternative for preadolescents.

Acute effects on cognitive performance following bouts of standing and light-intensity physical activity in a simulated workplace environment.

OBJECTIVES: To compare acute cognitive effects following bouts of standing (STAND), cycling (CYCLE) and walking (WALK) to a sit-only (SIT) condition. DESIGN: Randomized cross-over full-factorial study. METHODS: Nine overweight (BMI=29±3kg/m2) adults (30±15years; 7 females, 2 males) completed four conditions (SIT, STAND, WALK and CYCLE) across a 6h period with a 7days washout period between conditions. SIT consisted of uninterrupted sitting. Experimental conditions included intermittent bouts of standing (STAND), cycling (CYCLE) and walking (WALK). A cognitive performance battery (Cogstate) was completed twice in a seated position following bouts of standing and light-intensity physical activity. Mixed-effects models compared between-condition differences in standardized score (z-score), accuracy (%), and speed (log10ms). RESULTS: Cognitive performance z-score and accuracy measures were higher during STAND, CYCLE and WALK (P<0.05) conditions compared to the SIT condition. CYCLE was better than other experimental conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to uninterrupted sitting, short bouts of standing or light-intensity cycling and walking may improve acute cognitive performance.

An intervention to reduce sitting and increase light-intensity physical activity at work: Design and rationale of the 'Stand & Move at Work' group randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: American workers spend 70-80% of their time at work being sedentary. Traditional approaches to increase moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) may be perceived to be harmful to productivity. Approaches that target reductions in sedentary behavior and/or increases in standing or light-intensity physical activity [LPA] may not interfere with productivity and may be more feasible to achieve through small changes accumulated throughout the workday METHODS/DESIGN: This group randomized trial (i.e., cluster randomized trial) will test the relative efficacy of two sedentary behavior focused interventions in 24 worksites across two states (N=720 workers). The MOVE+ intervention is a multilevel individual, social, environmental, and organizational intervention targeting increases in light-intensity physical activity in the workplace. The STAND+ intervention is the MOVE+ intervention with the addition of the installation and use of sit-stand workstations to reduce sedentary behavior and enhance light-intensity physical activity opportunities. Our primary outcome will be objectively-measured changes in sedentary behavior and light-intensity physical activity over 12months, with additional process measures at 3months and longer-term sustainability outcomes at 24months. Our secondary outcomes will be a clustered cardiometabolic risk score (comprised of fasting glucose, insulin, triglycerides, HDL-cholesterol, and blood pressure), workplace productivity, and job satisfaction DISCUSSION: This study will determine the efficacy of a multi-level workplace intervention (including the use of a sit-stand workstation) to reduce sedentary behavior and increase LPA and concomitant impact on cardiometabolic health, workplace productivity, and satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02566317 (date of registration: 10/1/2015).

Effects of Standing and Light-Intensity Walking and Cycling on 24-h Glucose.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare 24-h and postprandial glucose responses to incremental intervals of standing (STAND), walking (WALK), and cycling (CYCLE) to a sit-only (SIT) condition. METHODS: Nine overweight/obese (body mass index = 29 ± 3 kg·m) adults (30 ± 15 yr) participated in this randomized crossover full-factorial study, with each condition performed 1 wk apart. STAND, CYCLE, and WALK intervals increased from 10 to 30 min·h (2.5 h total) during an 8-h workday. WALK (1.0 mph) and STAND were matched for upright time, and WALK and CYCLE were matched for energy expenditure (~2 METs). Continuous interstitial glucose monitoring was performed for 24 h to include the 8-h workday (LAB), after-work evening hours (EVE), and sleep (SLEEP). Three 2-h postprandial periods were also analyzed. Linear mixed models were used to test for condition differences. RESULTS: Compared with SIT (5.7 ± 1.0 mmol·L), mean 24-h glucose during STAND (5.4 ± 0.9 mmol·L) and WALK (5.3 ± 0.9 mmol·L) were lower, and CYCLE (5.1 ± 1.0 mmol·L) was lower than all other conditions (all P < 0.001). During LAB and EVE, mean glucose was lower for STAND, WALK, and CYCLE compared with SIT (P < 0.001). During SLEEP, the mean glucose for CYCLE was lower than all other conditions (P < 0.001). Compared with SIT, cumulative 6-h postprandial mean glucose was 5%-12% lower (P < 0.001) during STAND, WALK, and CYCLE, and 6-h postprandial glucose integrated area under the curve was 24% lower during WALK (P < 0.05) and 44% lower during CYCLE (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Replacing sitting with regular intervals of standing or light-intensity activity during an 8-h workday reduces 24-h and postprandial glucose. These effects persist during evening hours, with CYCLE having the largest and most sustained effect.

Effects of Standing and Light-Intensity Activity on Ambulatory Blood Pressure.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) response to accumulated standing (STAND), cycling (CYCLE), and walking (WALK) to a sitting-only (SIT) day in adults. METHODS: Nine overweight or obese (body mass index, 28.7 ± 2.7 kg · m(-2)) adults (30 ± 15 yr) participated in this randomized crossover full-factorial study. Four conditions (WALK, STAND, CYCLE, and SIT) were randomly performed 1 wk apart. WALK, STAND, and CYCLE conditions consisted of progressively increasing activity time to accumulate 2.5 h during an 8-h simulated workday. WALK (1.0 mph) and STAND (0.0 mph) were completed on a treadmill placed underneath a standing-height desk. During CYCLE, participants pedaled on a Monark cycle ergometer at a cadence and energy expenditure equivalent to WALK. Participants remained seated during the SIT condition. Participants wore an ABP cuff from 0800 h until 2200 h on all conditions. Linear mixed models were used to test condition differences in systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure. Chi-square was used to detect frequency difference of BP load. RESULTS: There was a whole-day (during and after work hours) SBP and DBP treatment effect (P < 0.01). Systolic blood pressure during STAND (132 ± 17 mm Hg), WALK (133 ± 17 mm Hg), and CYCLE (130 ± 16 mm Hg) were lower compared with that during SIT (137 ± 17 mm Hg) (all P < 0.01). CYCLE was lower than STAND (P = 0.04) and WALK (P < 0.01). For DBP, only CYCLE (69 ± 12 mm Hg) was lower than SIT (71 ± 13 mm Hg; P < 0.01). Compared with SIT, WALK, STAND, and CYCLE reduced SBP load by 4%, 4%, and 13%, respectively (all P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with sitting, accumulating 2.5 h of light-intensity physical activity or standing during an 8-h workday may reduce ABP during and after work hours.