Cost-effectiveness of reducing children's sedentary time and increasing physical activity at school: the Transform-Us! intervention.

BACKGROUND: Improving physical activity and reducing sedentary behavior represent important areas for intervention in childhood in order to reduce the burden of chronic disease related to obesity and physical inactivity in later life. This paper aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of a multi-arm primary school-based intervention to increase physical activity and/or reduce sedentary time in 8-9 year old children (Transform-Us!). METHODS: Modelled cost-utility analysis, using costs and effects from a cluster randomized controlled trial of a 30-month intervention that used pedagogical and environmental strategies to reduce and break up sedentary behaviour (SB-I), promote physical activity (PA-I), or a combined approach (PA + SB-I), compared to current practice. A validated multiple-cohort lifetable model (ACE-Obesity Policy model) estimated the obesity and physical activity-related health outcomes (measured as change in body mass index and change in metabolic equivalent task minutes respectively) and healthcare cost-savings over the cohort's lifetime from the public-payer perspective, assuming the intervention was delivered to all 8-9 year old children attending Australian Government primary schools. Sensitivity analyses tested the impact on cost-effectiveness of varying key input parameters, including maintenance of intervention effect assumptions. RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness results demonstrated that, when compared to control schools, the PA-I and SB-I intervention arms were "dominant", meaning that they resulted in net health benefits and healthcare cost-savings if the intervention effects were maintained. When the costs and effects of these intervention arms were extrapolated to the Australian population, results suggested significant potential as obesity prevention measures (PA-I: 60,780 HALYs saved (95% UI 15,007-109,413), healthcare cost-savings AUD641M (95% UI AUD165M-$1.1B); SB-I: 61,126 HALYs saved (95% UI 11,770 - 111,249), healthcare cost-savings AUD654M (95% UI AUD126M-1.2B)). The PA-I and SB-I interventions remained cost-effective in sensitivity analysis, assuming the full decay of intervention effect after 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: The PA-I and SB-I Transform-Us! intervention arms represent good value for money and could lead to health benefits and healthcare cost-savings arising from the prevention of chronic disease in later life if intervention effects are sustained. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN83725066). Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number (ACTRN12609000715279).

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sedentary behaviour interventions in offices to reduce sitting time in Australian desk-based workers: A modelling study.

OBJECTIVES: Sedentary behaviour (SB) is associated with increased incidence of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes (T2D), cardiovascular disease, cancers, and premature mortality. SB interventions in workplaces are effective in reducing sitting time. Previous economic evaluations have not specifically used changes in sitting time to estimate the long-term impact of SB on chronic disease-related health and cost outcomes. This research evaluated the cost-effectiveness of three hypothetical SB interventions: behavioural (BI), environmental (EI) and multi-component intervention (MI), implemented in the Australian context, using a newly developed epidemiological model that estimates the impact of SB as a risk factor on long-term population health and associated cost outcomes. METHOD: Pathway analysis was used to identify the resource items associated with implementing each of the three interventions using a limited societal perspective (included costs: health sector, individuals and industry; excluded costs: productivity). The effectiveness of the modelled interventions in reducing daily sitting time (informed by published meta-analyses) was modelled for the Australian working population aged 20-65 years. A multi-cohort Markov model was developed to simulate the 2019 Australian population and estimate the incidence, prevalence and mortality of five diseases causally related to excessive sitting time, over the life course. Monte-Carlo simulations were used to calculate each intervention's mean incremental costs and benefits (quantified as health adjusted life years HALYs) compared to a do-nothing comparator. RESULTS: When implemented at the national level, the interventions were estimated to reach 1,018 organisations with 1,619,239 employees. The estimated incremental cost of SB interventions was A$159M (BI), A$688M (EI) and A$438M (MI) over a year. Incremental health-adjusted life years (HALYs) gained by BI, EI and MI were 604, 919 and 349, respectively. The mean ICER for BI was A$251,863 per HALY gained, A$737,307 for EI and A$1,250,426 for MI. Only BI had any probability (2%) of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000 per HALY gained from a societal perspective. CONCLUSION: SB interventions are not cost-effective when a reduction in sitting time is the outcome measure of interest. The cost-effectiveness results are heavily driven by the cost of the sit-stand desks and the small HALYs gained from reducing sitting time. Future research should focus on capturing non-health-benefits of these interventions, such as productivity, work satisfaction, and other health benefits: metabolic, physical, and musculoskeletal outcomes. Importantly, the health benefits of simultaneously reducing sitting time and increasing standing time for such interventions should be captured with the joint effects of these risk factors appropriately considered.

The burden of type 2 diabetes in Australia during the period 1990-2019: Findings from the global burden of disease study.

AIMS: To describe morbidity and mortality trends of type 2 diabetes in Australia, from 1990 to 2019, compared with similar sociodemographic index (SDI) countries. METHODS: Australia-specific Global Burden of Diseases data were used to estimate age-standardised, age-specific, and sex-specific rates for prevalence, years lived with disability (YLDs), years of life lost (YLLs), disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), and deaths due to type 2 diabetes between 1990 and 2019. Australian data were compared with 14 similar SDI countries. RESULTS: Type 2 diabetes increased in Australia between 1990 and 2019. The age-standardised prevalence increased from 1,985 [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1,786.7-2195.3] per 100,000 population, to 3,429 [95% CI 3,053.3-3,853.7]. Cases tripled, from 379,532 [342,465-419,475] to 1,307,261 [1,165,522-1,461,180]. The age-standardised death rates doubled, from 2,098 [1,953-2,203] per 100,000, to 4,122 [3,617-4,512]. DALYs doubled, from 70,348 [59,187-83,500] to 169,763 [129,792-216,150], with increases seen in YLDs and YLLs. Men displayed higher rates. Compared to similar SDI countries, Australia ranked 4th in terms of burden for type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of type 2 diabetes in Australia has increased considerably over three decades. There is an urgent need to prioritise resource allocation for prevention programs, screening initiatives to facilitate early detection, and effective and accessible management strategies for the large proportion of the population impacted by type 2 diabetes.

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.

Breaking Sitting Time with Physical Activity Increases Energy Expenditure but Does Not Alter Postprandial Metabolism in Girls.

PURPOSE: Young people spend a substantial proportion of their time at school sedentary; therefore, this setting represents an important target for interventions aimed at displacing sedentary time with physical activity. This study aimed to examine the postprandial metabolic effects of breaking sedentary time by accumulating walking and repeated bouts of nonambulatory standing during simulated school days in inactive adolescent girls. METHODS: Seventeen girls (mean ± SD = 12.8 ± 0.4 yr) completed two 3-d experimental conditions. On days 1 and 2 of the standing + walking (STD-WLK) experimental trial, participants interrupted sedentary time by completing 4 × 10 min bouts of self-paced walking and accumulated 18 × 5 min standing bouts during each simulated school day. On day 3 of STD-WLK, participants attended school as normal with no additional physical activity or standing prescribed. On all 3 d of the control condition (CON), participants attended school as normal with no physical activity intervention. On days 2 and 3 of both STD-WLK and CON, a baseline capillary blood sample was provided to determine fasting [TAG] and [glucose]. Participants then consumed a standardized breakfast (0 h) and lunch (4.7 h), and blood samples were provided postprandially at 2.7, 5.3, and 7.3 h for [TAG] and [glucose]. RESULTS: Energy expenditure was 28% (95% confidence interval = 8% to 52%) higher during school hours on day 1 and day 2 during STD-WLK compared with CON (2171 vs 1693 kJ; effect size = 0.89, P = 0.008). However, no reduction of fasting or postprandial [TAG] or [glucose] was observed on day 2 or day 3 ( P ≥ 0.245). CONCLUSIONS: Two consecutive days of breaking prolonged sitting with self-paced walking and intermittent standing had no meaningful effect on postprandial metabolism in adolescent girls.

Neighbourhood walkability and dietary attributes: effect modification by area-level socio-economic status.

OBJECTIVE: Higher neighbourhood walkability would be expected to contribute to better health, but the relevant evidence is inconsistent. This may be because residents' dietary attributes, which vary with socio-economic status (SES) and influence their health, can be related to walkability. We examined associations of walkability with dietary attributes and potential effect modification by area-level SES. DESIGN: The exposure variable of this cross-sectional study was neighbourhood walkability, calculated using residential density, intersection density and destination density within 1-km street-network buffer around each participant's residence. The outcome variables were dietary patterns (Western, prudent and mixed) and total dietary energy intake, derived from a FFQ. Main and interaction effects with area-level SES were estimated using two-level linear regression models. SETTING: Participants were from all states and territories in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: The analytical sample included 3590 participants (54 % women, age range 34 to 86). RESULTS: Walkability was not associated with dietary attributes in the whole sample. However, we found interaction effects of walkability and area-level SES on Western diet scores (P < 0·001) and total energy intake (P = 0·012). In low SES areas, higher walkability was associated with higher Western dietary patterns (P = 0·062) and higher total energy intake (P = 0·066). In high SES areas, higher walkability was associated with lower Western diet scores (P = 0·021) and lower total energy intake (P = 0·058). CONCLUSIONS: Higher walkability may not be necessarily conducive to better health in socio-economically disadvantaged areas. Public health initiatives to enhance neighbourhood walkability need to consider food environments and socio-economic contexts.

Modelling the potential health and economic benefits of reducing population sitting time in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Strong evidence indicates that excessive time spent sitting (sedentary behaviour) is detrimentally associated with multiple chronic diseases. Sedentary behaviour is prevalent among adults in Australia and has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Estimating the potential health benefits and healthcare cost saving associated with reductions in population sitting time could be useful for the development of public health initiatives. METHODS: A sedentary behaviour model was developed and incorporated into an existing proportional, multi-state, life table Markov model (ACE-Obesity Policy model). This model simulates the 2019 Australian population (age 18 years and above) and estimates the incidence, prevalence and mortality of five diseases associated with sedentary behaviour (type 2 diabetes, stroke, endometrial, breast and colorectal cancer). Key model inputs included population sitting time estimates from the Australian National Health Survey 2014-2015, healthcare cost data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2015) and relative risk estimates assessed by conducting literature reviews and meta-analyses. Scenario analyses estimated the potential change in disease incidence as a result of changes in population sitting time. This, in turn, resulted in estimated improvements in long term health outcomes (Health-adjusted life years (HALYs)) and healthcare cost-savings. RESULTS: According to the model, if all Australian adults sat no more than 4 h per day, the total HALYs gained would be approximately 17,211 with health care cost savings of approximately A$185 million over one year. Under a more feasible scenario, where sitting time was reduced in adults who sit 4 or more hours per day by approximately 36 min per person per day (based on the results of the Stand Up Victoria randomised controlled trial), potential HALYs gained were estimated to be 3,670 and healthcare cost saving could reach A$39 million over one year. CONCLUSIONS: Excessive sedentary time results in considerable population health burden in Australia. This paper describes the development of the first Australian sedentary behaviour model that can be used to predict the long term consequences of interventions targeted at reducing sedentary behaviour through reductions in sitting time. These estimates may be used by decision makers when prioritising healthcare resources and investing in preventative public health initiatives.

Economics of sedentary behaviour: A systematic review of cost of illness, cost-effectiveness, and return on investment studies.

AIMS: METHODS: RESULTS: We identified nine articles (conducted in Australia (n = 5), Europe (n = 3) and China (n = 1)); three reported healthcare costs associated with excessive sedentary time, whilst six were economic evaluations of interventions targeting sedentary behaviour. Healthcare costs associated with excessive sedentary time as reported in cost of illness studies were substantial; however, none explored non-health sector costs. In contrast, all full economics evaluations adopted a societal perspective; however, costs included differed depending on the intervention context. One sedentary behaviour intervention in children was cost-saving. The five interventions targeting occupational sitting time of adults in office workplaces were cost-effective. Physical environmental changes such as sit-stand desks, active workstations etc., were the key cost driver. CONCLUSIONS: Sedentary behaviour is likely associated with excess healthcare costs, although future research should also explore costs across other sectors. Cost-effectiveness evidence of sedentary behaviour reduction interventions in workplaces is limited but consistent. Key gaps relate to the economic credentials of interventions targeting children, and modelling of long-term health benefits of interventions.

Stand Out in Class: Investigating the Potential Impact of a Sit-Stand Desk Intervention on Children's Sitting and Physical Activity during Class Time and after School.

Sedentary behaviour (sitting) is a risk factor for adverse health outcomes. The classroom environment has traditionally been associated with prolonged periods of sitting in children. The aim of this study was to examine the potential impact of an environmental intervention, the addition of sit-stand desks in the classroom, on school children's sitting and physical activity during class time and after school. The 'Stand Out in Class' pilot trial was a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in eight primary schools with children from a mixed socioeconomic background. The 4.5 month environmental intervention modified the physical (six sit-stand desks replaced standard desks) and social (e.g., teachers' support) environment. All children wore activPAL and ActiGraph accelerometers for 7 days at baseline and follow-up. In total 176 children (mean age = 9.3 years) took part in the trial. At baseline, control and intervention groups spent more than 65% of class time sitting, this changed to 71.7% and 59.1% at follow-up, respectively (group effect p < 0.001). The proportion of class time spent standing and stepping, along with the proportion of time in light activity increased in the intervention group and decreased in the control group. There was no evidence of any compensatory effects from the intervention after school. Incorporating sit-stand desks to change the classroom environment at primary school appears to be an acceptable strategy for reducing children's sedentary behaviour and increasing light activity especially during class time. Trial registration: ISRCTN12915848 (registered: 09/11/16).

Mortality Effects of Hypothetical Interventions on Physical Activity and TV Viewing.

INTRODUCTION: Long-term effects of physical activity and television (TV) viewing on mortality have been inferred from observational studies. The associations observed do not allow for inferences about the effects of population interventions and could be subject to bias due to time-varying confounding. METHODS: Using data from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study, collected in 1999-2000 (T0), 2004-2005 (T1), and 2011-2012 (T2), we applied the parametric g-formula to estimate cumulative risks of death under hypothetical interventions on physical activity and/or TV viewing determined from self-report while adjusting for time-varying confounding. RESULTS: In the 6377 participants followed up for 13 yr from 2004 to 2005 to death or censoring in 2017, 781 participants died. The observed cumulative risk of death was 12.2%. The most effective hypothetical intervention was to increase weekly physical activity to >300 min (risk ratio (RR), 0.66 (0.46-0.86) compared with a "worst-case" scenario; RR, 0.83 (0.73-0.94) compared with no intervention). Reducing daily TV viewing to <2 h in addition to physical activity interventions did not show added survival benefits. Reducing TV viewing alone was least effective in reducing mortality (RR, 0.85 (0.60-1.10) compared with the worst-case scenario; RR, 1.06 (0.93-1.20) compared with no intervention). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggested that sustained interventions to increase physical activity could lower all-cause mortality over a 13-yr period, and there might be limited gain from intervening to reduce TV viewing time in a relatively healthy population.

Reducing sitting at work: process evaluation of the SMArT Work (Stand More At Work) intervention.

BACKGROUND: Office-based workers accumulate high amounts of sitting time. Stand More At Work (SMArT Work) aimed to reduce occupational sitting time and a cluster randomised controlled trial demonstrated it was successful in achieving this aim. The purpose of this paper is to present the process evaluation of the SMArT Work intervention. METHODS: Questionnaire data were collected from intervention participants at 6 months (n = 58) and 12 months (n = 55). Questionnaires sought feedback on the different components of the intervention (education, height-adjustable desk, Darma cushion, behaviour feedback, progress chats (coaching) with research team, action planning/goal setting diary) and experiences of evaluation measures. Control participants (n = 37) were asked via questionnaire at 12-month follow-up about the impact of the study on their behaviour and any lifestyle changes made during the study. Participants from both arms were invited to focus groups to gain a deeper understanding of their experiences on completion of 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Focus group and questionnaire data showed a positive attitude towards the height-adjustable workstation with a high proportion of participants using it every day (62%). Most participants (92%) felt the education seminar increased their awareness of the health consequences of too much sitting and motivated them to change their behaviour. Receiving feedback on their sitting time and support from the research team also encouraged behaviour change. The Darma cushion and action planning/goal setting diary were seen to be less helpful for behaviour change. Benefits experienced included fewer aches and pains, improved cognitive functioning, increased productivity, more energy and positive feelings about general health. CONCLUSIONS: Key elements of the programme identified as facilitating behaviour change were the educational seminar, the height-adjustable workstation, behavioural feedback and regular contact with research staff through regular progress chats. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN10967042. Registered on 2 February 2015.

Stand Out in Class: restructuring the classroom environment to reduce sitting time - findings from a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Excessive sedentary behaviour (sitting) is a risk factor for poor health in children and adults. Incorporating sit-stand desks in the classroom environment has been highlighted as a potential strategy to reduce children's sitting time. The primary aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a sit-stand desk intervention within primary school classrooms. METHODS: We conducted a two-armed pilot cluster RCT involving 8 primary schools in Bradford, United Kingdom. Schools were randomised on a 1:1 basis to the intervention or usual practice control arm. All children (aged 9-10 years) in participating classes were eligible to take part. Six sit-stand desks replaced three standard desks (sitting 6 children) in the intervention classrooms for 4.5-months. Teachers were encouraged to use a rotation system to ensure all pupils were exposed to the sit-stand desks for > 1 h/day on average. Trial feasibility outcomes (assessed using quantitative and qualitative measures) included school and participant recruitment and attrition, intervention and outcome measure completion rates, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of the intervention for reducing sitting time. A weighted linear regression model compared changes in weekday sitting time (assessed using the activPAL accelerometer) between trial arms. RESULTS: School and child recruitment rates were 33% (n = 8) and 75% (n = 176). At follow-up, retention rates were 100% for schools and 97% for children. Outcome measure completion rates ranged from 63 to 97%. A preliminary estimate of intervention effectiveness revealed a mean difference in change in sitting of - 30.6 min/day (95% CI: - 56.42 to - 4.84) in favour of the intervention group, after adjusting for baseline sitting and wear time. Qualitative measures revealed the intervention and evaluation procedures were acceptable to teachers and children, except for some problems with activPAL attachment. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence of the acceptability and feasibility of a sit-stand desk intervention and evaluation methods. Preliminary evidence suggests the intervention showed potential in reducing children's weekday sitting but some adaptations to the desk rotation system are needed to maximize exposure. Lessons learnt from this trial will inform the planning of a definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12915848 (registered: 09/11/16).

Supporting Workers to Sit Less and Move More Through the Web-Based BeUpstanding Program: Protocol for a Single-Arm, Repeated Measures Implementation Study.

BACKGROUND: The web-based BeUpstanding Champion Toolkit was developed to support work teams in addressing the emergent work health and safety issue of excessive sitting. It provides a step-by-step guide and associated resources that equip a workplace representative-the champion-to adopt and deliver the 8-week intervention program (BeUpstanding) to their work team. The evidence-informed program is designed to raise awareness of the benefits of sitting less and moving more, build a supportive culture for change, and encourage staff to take action to achieve this change. Work teams collectively choose the strategies they want to implement and promote to stand up, sit less, and move more, with this bespoke and participative approach ensuring the strategies are aligned with the team's needs and existing culture. BeUpstanding has been iteratively developed and optimized through a multiphase process to ensure that it is fit for purpose for wide-scale implementation. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to describe the current version of BeUpstanding, and the methods and protocol for a national implementation trial. METHODS: The trial will be conducted in collaboration with five Australian workplace health and safety policy and practice partners. Desk-based work teams from a variety of industries will be recruited from across Australia via partner-led referral pathways. Recruitment will target sectors (small business, rural or regional, call center, blue collar, and government) that are of priority to the policy and practice partners. A minimum of 50 work teams will be recruited per priority sector with a minimum of 10,000 employees exposed to the program. A single-arm, repeated-measures design will assess the short-term (end of program) and long-term (9 months postprogram) impacts. Data will be collected on the web via surveys and toolkit analytics and by the research team via telephone calls with champions. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance Framework will guide the evaluation, with assessment of the adoption/reach of the program (the number and characteristics of work teams and participating staff), program implementation (completion by the champion of core program components), effectiveness (on workplace sitting, standing, and moving), and maintenance (sustainability of changes). There will be an economic evaluation of the costs and outcomes of scaling up to national implementation, including intervention affordability and sustainability. RESULTS: The study received funding in June 2018 and the original protocol was approved by institutional review board on January 9, 2017, with national implementation trial consent and protocol amendment approved March 12, 2019. The trial started on June 12, 2019, with 48 teams recruited as of December 2019. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation and multimethod evaluation of BeUpstanding will provide the practice-based evidence needed for informing the potential broader dissemination of the program. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617000682347; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=372843&isReview=true. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/15756.

A Cost and Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Stand More AT Work (SMArT Work) Intervention.

This study conducted a cost and cost-benefit analysis of the Stand More AT (SMArT) Work workplace intervention, designed to reduce sitting time. The study was a cluster two-armed randomised controlled trial involving 37 office clusters (146 desk-based workers) in a National Health Service Trust. The intervention group received a height-adjustable workstation with supporting behaviour change strategies. The control group continued with usual practice. Self-report absenteeism, presenteeism and work productivity were assessed at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months; and organisational sickness absence records 12 months prior to, and 12 months of the intervention. Mean per employee costs associated with SMArT Work were calculated. Absenteeism, presenteeism and work productivity were estimated, and employer-recorded absence data and employee wage-banding were used to provide a human-capital-based estimate of costs to the organisation. The return-on-investment (ROI) and incremental cost-efficacy ratios (ICER) were calculated. Intervention cost was £692.40 per employee. Cost-benefit estimates show a net saving of £1770.32 (95%CI £-354.40, £3895.04) per employee as a result of productivity increase. There were no significant differences in absence data compared to the control group. SMArT Work provides supporting evidence for policy-makers and employers on the cost benefits of reducing sitting time at work.

A cluster randomized controlled trial to reduce office workers' sitting time: effect on productivity outcomes.

Objective This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the Stand Up Victoria intervention - a multicomponent workplace intervention that successfully reduced workplace sitting - on productivity in the short- and longer-term. Methods Desk-based workers [5-39 per worksite; 68% women; mean age 45.6 (standard deviation 9.4) years] were cluster randomized by office worksite to receive intervention (7 worksites, 136 workers) or control (7 worksites, 95 workers). The intervention used organizational-, environmental-, and individual-level approaches to address workplace sitting. Productivity outcomes were measured via the Health and Work Questionnaire (HWQ; 10 outcomes) and Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ; 5 outcomes), administered at 0 (baseline), 3 (initial), and 12 (long-term) months. Intervention effects were assessed by linear mixed models, accounting for repeated measures and clustering, baseline values, and potential confounders. Evaluable case and multiple imputation analyses were used. Results At 12 months, trends for improvement were observed in the HWQ non-work satisfaction subscale (P=0.053) and stress item (P=0.086). Intervention effects on remaining outcomes for the HWQ were small and non-significant at both timepoints. At 3 months, intervention effects showed significant improvements in the WLQ mental demands subscale (P=0.043). At 12 months, intervention effects showed significant (P<0.05) small-to-moderate improvements in four WLQ outcomes (weighted total score, time-, mental-, and output demands), with physical demands showing a small significant worsening. Conclusions were robust to missing data assumptions. Conclusions The intervention improved some measures of productivity at 12 months, providing important evidence to the business case supporting workplace sitting-reduction interventions.

Population density is beneficially associated with 12-year diabetes risk marker change among residents of lower socio-economic neighborhoods.

We examined associations of neighborhood population density with 12-year changes in diabetes risk (post-challenge plasma glucose), and potential moderation by neighborhood socio-economic status (SES) among 4,816 Australians. In lower SES neighborhoods, post-challenge plasma glucose increased by 6% in low-density, remained stable in medium-density and decreased by 3% in high-density neighborhoods. In medium SES neighborhoods, glucose remained stable in high-density, but increased by 2% and 3% in medium- and low-density neighborhoods, respectively. In higher SES neighborhoods, no significant interaction effect between time and density was observed. Densification may make protective contributions for diabetes risk in lower and medium SES neighborhoods.

Are Office-Based Workplace Interventions Designed to Reduce Sitting Time Cost-Effective Primary Prevention Measures for Cardiovascular Disease? A Systematic Review and Modelled Economic Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of workplace-delivered interventions designed to reduce sitting time as primary prevention measures for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in Australia. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of a workplace intervention for the primary prevention of CVD amongst office-based workers. An updated systematic review and a meta-analysis of workplace interventions that aim to reduce sitting time was conducted to inform the intervention effect. The primary outcome was workplace standing time. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for this intervention measured against current practice. Costs (in Australia dollars) and benefits were discounted at 3% annually. Both deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The updated systematic review identified only one new study. Only the multicomponent intervention that included a sit-and-stand workstation showed statistically significant changes in the standing time compared to the control. The intervention was associated with both higher costs ($6820 versus $6524) and benefits (23.28 versus 23.27, quality-adjusted life year, QALYs), generating an ICER of $43,825/QALY. The DSA showed that target age group for the intervention, relative risk of CVD relative to the control and intervention cost were the key determinants of the ICER. The base case results were within the range of the 95% confidence interval and the intervention had a 85.2% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: A workplace-delivered intervention in the office-based setting including a sit-and-stand desk component is a cost-effective strategy for the primary prevention of CVD. It offers a new option and location when considering interventions to target the growing CVD burden.

Arriba por la Vida Estudio (AVE): Study protocol for a standing intervention targeting postmenopausal Latinas.

BACKGROUND: Postmenopausal Latinas are a growing population group in the US who are at high risk for cardiovascular disease. Epidemiological studies have shown that excessive sitting is related to cardiovascular disease risk. Older women sit for prolonged periods and most individuals do not meet physical activity guidelines. Reducing sitting through increased standing may improve cardiovascular risk. More research is needed on how to intervene to increase standing in older Latinas. OBJECTIVE: To describe the protocol for a randomized controlled trial to increase standing in postmenopausal Latinas: the Arriba por la Vida Estudio (AVE). DESIGN/METHODS: Postmenopausal Latinas will be randomized to one of two study arms: an increase standing intervention or a heart healthy attention-comparison condition. A total of 250 overweight postmenopausal Latinas will be recruited and followed for 12weeks. AVE is based on various models of behavior change including strategies such as self-monitoring, goal setting, and habit formation. Participants will receive three in-personhealth-counseling sessions (including one in-home visit) and five follow-up telephone calls using motivational interviewing techniques. Those in the attention-comparison condition will receive an equal number of contacts as the standing intervention with topics focused on healthy aging. The primary outcome is objectively-measured sitting time over three months measured via thigh-worn inclinometers and secondary outcomes include blood pressure, physical functioning and glucoregulatory and lipid biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study will provide valuable information about effective approaches to increase standing time in postmenopausal Latinas and its impact on cardiovascular disease risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at clincialtrials.gov Identifier: NCT02905929.

The impact of height-adjustable desks and prompts to break-up classroom sitting on adolescents' energy expenditure, adiposity markers and perceived musculoskeletal discomfort.

Adolescents spend large amounts of time sitting at school. Little is known about the impact of reducing and breaking-up prolonged sitting during school lessons on adolescents' health. This study aimed to investigate the impact of an intervention to reduce classroom sitting time on adolescents' energy expenditure (EE; kcal/lesson), body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), and musculoskeletal discomfort. A secondary school classroom was equipped with height-adjustable desks, posters promoting the health benefits of and strategies for breaking-up sitting time, and desk stickers reminding students to periodically stand up. Classroom teachers participated in a professional development session. Using a quasi-experimental design, differences between 49 participants who utilised the intervention classroom 2-5 times/week and a comparison group (39 adolescents, matched by year level and subject) who used traditional classrooms, were examined. EE, BMI and WC were objectively measured and musculoskeletal discomfort was self-reported at baseline, 4-weeks, and 17-weeks. Hierarchical linear and multilevel logistic regression-mixed models were used to examine intervention effects, adjusting for baseline values, sex and age. EE was significantly higher at 4-weeks and 17-weeks (29.4 and 37.7 kcal/lesson, respectively), BMI was higher at 4-weeks (0.34 kg/m2), and WC was lower at 4-weeks and 17-weeks (-3.53 and -2.64 cm, respectively) in the intervention compared to the comparison group. No intervention effect was found for musculoskeletal discomfort. Findings provide preliminary indications that these strategies may benefit health among adolescents in the short term. However, extended longer-duration trials are needed to determine longer-term health effects.

Perceptions of the acceptability and feasibility of reducing occupational sitting: review and thematic synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Reducing workplace sedentary behaviour (sitting) is a topic of contemporary public health and occupational health interest. Understanding workers' perspectives on the feasibility and acceptability of strategies, and barriers and facilitators to reducing workplace sitting time, can help inform the design and implementation of targeted interventions. The aim of this qualitative synthesis was to identify and synthesise the evidence on factors perceived to influence the acceptability and feasibility of reducing sitting at work, without, and with, an associated intervention component. METHODS: A systematic search of the peer-reviewed literature was conducted across multiple databases in October 2017 to identify studies with a qualitative component relating to reducing workplace sitting time. Relevant data were extracted and imported into NVivo, and analysed by three of the authors by coding the results sections of papers line-by-line, with codes organised into sub-themes and then into overarching themes. Studies with and without an associated intervention were analysed separately. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria, 22 of which had collected qualitative data during and/or following a workplace intervention. Sample sizes ranged from five through to 71 participants. Studies predominately involved desk-based workers (28/32) and were most frequently conducted in Australia, USA or the United Kingdom (26/32). Similar themes were identified across non-intervention and intervention studies, particularly relating to barriers and facilitators to reducing workplace sitting. Predominately, work and social environment attributes were identified as barriers/facilitators, with desk-based work and work pressures influencing the perceived feasibility of reducing sitting, particularly for low-cost interventions. Support from co-workers and managers was considered a key facilitator to reducing sitting, while social norms that discouraged movement were a prominent barrier. Across all studies, some consistent perceptions of benefits to reducing sitting were identified, including improved physical health, enhanced emotional well-being and associated work-related benefits. CONCLUSION: Common barriers and facilitators to reducing workplace sitting time were identified across the literature, most prominently involving the social environment and job-related demands. These findings can inform the design and implementation of workplace sitting reduction strategies. To increase the generalisability of findings, further research is needed in a more diverse range of countries and industries.