National implementation trial of BeUpstanding™: an online initiative for workers to sit less and move more.

BACKGROUND: The online BeUpstanding™ program is an eight-week workplace-delivered intervention for desk-based workers to raise awareness of the benefits of sitting less and moving more and build a supportive culture for change. A workplace representative (the "champion") delivers the program, which includes a workshop where teams collectively choose their sit less/move more strategies. A toolkit provides the champion with a step-by-step guide and associated resources to support program uptake, delivery, and evaluation. Here we report on the main findings from the Australian national implementation trial of BeUpstanding. METHODS: Recruitment (12/06/2019 to 30/09/2021) was supported by five policy and practice partners, with desk-based work teams from across Australia targeted. Effectiveness was measured via a single arm, repeated-measures trial. Data were collected via online surveys, toolkit analytics, and telephone calls with champions. The RE-AIM framework guided evaluation, with adoption/reach (number and characteristics); effectiveness (primary: self-reported workplace sitting time); implementation (completion of core components; costs); and, maintenance intentions reported here. Linear mixed models, correcting for cluster, were used for effectiveness, with reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance outcomes described. RESULTS: Of the 1640 website users who signed-up to BeUpstanding during the recruitment period, 233 were eligible, 198 (85%) provided preliminary consent, and 118 (50.6%) champions consented and started the trial, with 94% (n = 111 champions) completing. Trial participation was from across Australia and across industries, and reached 2,761 staff, with 2,248 participating in the staff survey(s): 65% female; 64% university educated; 17% from a non-English speaking background. The program effectively changed workplace sitting (-38.5 [95%CI -46.0 to -28.7] minutes/8-hour workday) and all outcomes targeted by BeUpstanding (behaviours and culture), with small-to-moderate statistically-significant effects observed. All participating teams (n = 94) completed at least 5/7 core steps; 72.4% completed all seven. Most champions spent $0 (72%) or >$0-$5 (10%) per team member; most (67/70 96%) intended to continue or repeat the program. CONCLUSIONS: BeUpstanding can be adopted and successfully implemented by a range of workplaces, reach a diversity of staff, and be effective at creating a supportive culture for teams of desk-based workers to sit less and move more. Learnings will inform optimisation of the program for longer-term sustainability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12617000682347.

Detection of sedentary time and bouts using consumer-grade wrist-worn devices: a hidden semi-Markov model.

BACKGROUND: Wrist-worn data from commercially available devices has potential to characterize sedentary time for research and for clinical and public health applications. We propose a model that utilizes heart rate in addition to step count data to estimate the proportion of time spent being sedentary and the usual length of sedentary bouts. METHODS: We developed and trained two Hidden semi-Markov models, STEPHEN (STEP and Heart ENcoder) and STEPCODE (STEP enCODEr; a steps-only based model) using consumer-grade Fitbit device data from participants under free living conditions, and validated model performance using two external datasets. We used the median absolute percentage error (MDAPE) to measure the accuracy of the proposed models against research-grade activPAL device data as the referent. Bland-Altman plots summarized the individual-level agreement with activPAL. RESULTS: In OPTIMISE cohort, STEPHEN's estimates of the proportion of time spent sedentary had significantly (p < 0.001) better accuracy (MDAPE [IQR] = 0.15 [0.06-0.25] vs. 0.23 [0.13-0.53)]) and agreement (Bias Mean [SD]=-0.03[0.11] vs. 0.14 [0.11]) than the proprietary software, estimated the usual sedentary bout duration more accurately (MDAPE[IQR] = 0.11[0.06-0.26] vs. 0.42[0.32-0.48]), and had better agreement (Bias Mean [SD] = 3.91[5.67] minutes vs. -11.93[5.07] minutes). With the ALLO-Active dataset, STEPHEN and STEPCODE did not improve the estimation of proportion of time spent sedentary, but STEPHEN estimated usual sedentary bout duration more accurately than the proprietary software (MDAPE[IQR] = 0.19[0.03-0.25] vs. 0.36[0.15-0.48]) and had smaller bias (Bias Mean[SD] = 0.70[8.89] minutes vs. -11.35[9.17] minutes). CONCLUSIONS: STEPHEN can characterize the proportion of time spent being sedentary and usual sedentary bout length. The methodology is available as an open access R package available from https://github.com/limfuxing/stephen/ . The package includes trained models, but users have the flexibility to train their own models.

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 .

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.

A RE-AIM evaluation in early adopters to iteratively improve the online BeUpstanding™ program supporting workers to sit less and move more.

BACKGROUND: The web-based BeUpstanding program supports desk workers to sit less and move more. Successfully translated from a research-delivered intervention, BeUpstanding has gone through iterative development and evaluation phases in preparation for wide-scale implementation. In the third planned "early-adopters" phase (01/09/2017-11/06/2019), the program was made freely-available online. An integrated delivery and evaluation platform was also developed to enable workplace champions to run and evaluate the intervention within their work team independent of researcher support. Using the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework, this study reports on the extent to which the program and processes were "fit-for-purpose" for a national implementation trial across the indicators of uptake (reach and adoption), implementation and engagement, and effectiveness for behaviour change. METHODS: Data were collected via the online surveys embedded in the program and through program access analytics. Descriptive data (with linearized variance for the clustered staff-level data) and results from mixed models (repeated data and clustering for pre-post changes) are reported. RESULTS: Despite purposeful limited promotion, uptake was good, with 182 Australian users initially registering (208 total) and 135 (from 113 organisations) then completing the sign-up process. Recruitment reached users across Australia and in 16 of 19 Australian industries. Implementation was inconsistent and limited, with signed-up users completing 0 to 14 of the program's 14 steps and only 7 (5.2%) completing all seven core steps. Many champions (n = 69, 51.1%) had low engagement (1 day toolkit usage) and few (n = 30, 22%) were highly engaged (> 1 day toolkit usage and surveyed staff). Although only 18 users (7 organisations) performed the pre- and post-program staff evaluations (337 and 167 staff, respectively), pre-post changes showed the program effectively reduced workplace sitting by - 9.0% (95% CI -12.0, - 5.9%). DISCUSSION: The program had uptake across industries and across Australia, but implementation and engagement varied widely. Few workplaces completed the evaluation components. In those that did, the program was effective for the primary outcome (workplace sitting). Conducting a planned early adopters phase and a comprehensive evaluation according to RE-AIM helped highlight necessary program improvements to make it more suitable for wide-scale implementation and evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinic Trials Registry ACTRN12617000682347 . Date registered: 12/05/2017.

Translating research into practice: outcomes from the Healthy Living after Cancer partnership project.

BACKGROUND: Healthy Living after Cancer (HLaC) was a national dissemination and implementation study of an evidence-based lifestyle intervention for cancer survivors. The program was imbedded into existing telephone cancer information and support services delivered by Australian state-based Cancer Councils (CC). We report here the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the program. METHODS: In this phase IV study (single-group, pre-post design) participants - survivors of any type of cancer, following treatment with curative intent - received up to 12 nurse/allied health professional-led telephone health coaching calls over 6 months. Intervention delivery was grounded in motivational interviewing, with emphasis on evidence-based behaviour change strategies. Using the RE-AIM evaluation framework, primary outcomes were reach, indicators of program adoption, implementation, costs and maintenance. Secondary (effectiveness) outcomes were participant-reported anthropometric, behavioural and psychosocial variables including: weight; physical activity; dietary intake; quality-of-life; treatment side-effects; distress; and fear of cancer recurrence and participant satisfaction. Changes were evaluated using linear mixed models, including terms for timepoint (0/6 months), strata (Cancer Council), and timepoint x strata. RESULTS: Four of 5 CCs approached participated in the study. In total, 1183 cancer survivors were referred (mostly via calls to the Cancer Council telephone information service). Of these, 90.4% were eligible and 88.7% (n = 791) of those eligible consented to participate. Retention rate was 63.4%. Participants were mostly female (88%), aged 57 years and were overweight (BMI = 28.8 ± 6.5 kg/m2). Improvements in all participant-reported outcomes (standardised effect sizes of 0.1 to 0.6) were observed (p < 0.001). The program delivery costs were on average AU$427 (US$296) per referred cancer survivor. CONCLUSIONS: This telephone-delivered lifestyle intervention, which was feasibly implemented by Cancer Councils, led to meaningful and statistically significant improvements in cancer survivors' health and quality-of-life at a relatively low cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) - ACTRN12615000882527 (registered on 24/08/2015).

Temporal features of sitting, standing and stepping changes in a cluster-randomised controlled trial of a workplace sitting-reduction intervention.

BACKGROUND: There is now a body of evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce workplace sitting time. However, there has been limited reporting of how such interventions may impact behaviour both during and outside of work. Sitting, standing and stepping changes following a workplace intervention were examined across five timeframes (work time on work days; non-work time on work days; work days; non-work days; overall (i.e. work and non-work time on all days)), and the relationships between changes during and outside of work was assessed. METHODS: The cluster-randomised controlled trial, 'Stand Up Victoria', delivered a multi-component workplace-delivered intervention that successfully reduced workplace and overall sitting time (relative to controls). Separately, over the five timeframes, changes in device (activPAL3)-assessed outcomes - sitting; prolonged sitting (≥30 min bouts); standing; and, stepping - were compared between intervention (n = 114) and controls (n = 84), along with the time-course of sitting changes during work hours, using mixed models. The potential relationships of changes during work with changes outside of work were examined using compositional data analysis. RESULTS: On workdays, intervention participants significantly (p < 0.05) improved their activity profile relative to controls, with reduced sitting (- 117 min/8-h workday, 95% CI: - 141, - 93) and prolonged sitting (- 77 min/8 h workday, 95% CI: - 101, - 52); increased standing (114 min/8 h workday, 95% CI: 92, 136) and maintenance of stepping (3 min/8 h workday, 95% CI: - 7, 11, p = 0.576). Effects were nearly identical for time at work; similar but slightly weaker for overall; and, small and non-significant outside of work on workdays and non-work days. Improvements occurred at all times, but not equally, during work hours (p < 0.001). Correlations between changes during and outside of work on workdays were very weak in both the intervention group (r = - 0.07) and controls (r = - 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Sitting time was reduced almost exclusively during work hours (via replacement with standing), with reductions evident during all working hours, to varying degrees. There was no evidence of compensation, with minimal change in activity outside of work, in response to changes in activity at work. Future interventions may benefit from exploring how best to elicit change throughout the whole day, and across work and non-work domains. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials register (ACTRN12611000742976) on 15 July 2011.

Prolonged uninterrupted sitting elevates postprandial hyperglycaemia proportional to degree of insulin resistance.

Prolonged uninterrupted sitting is related adversely to cardiometabolic risk markers and postprandial hyperglycaemia, relative to sitting interrupted by regular brief activity breaks. However, whether the magnitude of hyperglycaemic responses to prolonged sitting is dependent upon the underlying degree of insulin resistance remains unclear. Data were pooled from 3 randomized cross-over laboratory-based trials (n = 62) that examined the postprandial blood glucose- and insulin-lowering effects of prolonged sitting vs sitting interrupted by regular brief activity breaks in overweight/obese adults who had normal or impaired glucose metabolism (2 trials) or type 2 diabetes not treated by insulin (1 trial). Corrected for study effects, the magnitude of differences in postprandial glucose and insulin responses between the 2 conditions was significantly exacerbated with poorer baseline levels of fasting glucose, insulin and/or surrogate markers of ß-cell function and insulin resistance. This suggests that those with higher underlying levels of insulin resistance may derive greater metabolic benefits from regularly interrupting prolonged sitting than their healthier counterparts. If these findings can be replicated, they may have implications for future targeting and optimization of physical activity/sedentary behaviour interventions in the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes.

Associations of context-specific sitting time with markers of cardiometabolic risk in Australian adults.

BACKGROUND: High volumes of sitting time are associated with an elevated risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and with adverse cardiometabolic risk profiles. However, previous studies have predominately evaluated only total sitting or television (TV) viewing time, limiting inferences about the specific cardiometabolic health impacts of sitting accumulated in different contexts. We examined associations of sitting time in four contexts with cardiometabolic risk biomarkers in Australian adults. METHODS: Participants (n = 3429; mean ± SD age 58 ± 10 years) were adults without clinically diagnosed diabetes or cardiovascular disease from the 2011-2012 Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle (AusDiab) study. Multiple linear regressions examined associations of self-reported context-specific sitting time (occupational, transportation, TV-viewing and leisure-time computer use) with a clustered cardiometabolic risk score (CMR) and with individual cardiometabolic risk biomarkers (waist circumference, BMI, resting blood pressure, triglycerides, HDL- and LDL-cholesterol, and fasting and 2-h post-load plasma glucose). RESULTS: Higher CMR was significantly associated with greater TV-viewing and computer sitting time (b [95%CI] = 0.07 [0.04, 0.09] and 0.06 [0.03, 0.09]), and tended to be associated with higher occupational and transport sitting time (0.01 [- 0.01, 0.03] and 0.03 [- 0.00, 0.06]), after adjustment for potential confounders. Furthermore, keeping total sitting time constant, accruing sitting via TV-viewing and computer use was associated with significantly higher CMR (0.05 [0.02, 0.08] and 0.04 [0.01, 0.06]), accruing sitting in an occupational context was associated with significantly lower CMR (- 0.03 [- 0.05, - 0.01]), while no significant association was seen for transport sitting (0.00 [- 0.03, 0.04]). Results varied somewhat between the respective biomarkers; however, higher sitting time in each domain tended to be associated detrimentally with individual biomarkers except for fasting glucose (non-significant associations) and systolic blood pressure (a beneficial association was observed). Overall, associations were stronger for TV-viewing and computer use, and weaker for occupational sitting. CONCLUSIONS: Higher context-specific sitting times tended to be detrimentally associated, albeit modestly, with CMR and several cardiometabolic risk biomarkers. There was some evidence suggesting that the context in which people sit is relevant above and beyond total sitting time. Methodological issues notwithstanding, these findings may assist in identifying priorities for sitting-reduction initiatives, in order to achieve optimal cardiometabolic health benefits.

What strategies do desk-based workers choose to reduce sitting time and how well do they work? Findings from a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Large amounts of sitting at work have been identified as an emerging occupational health risk, and findings from intervention trials have been reported. However, few such reports have examined participant-selected strategies and their relationships with behaviour change. METHODS: The Stand Up Victoria cluster-randomised controlled trial was a workplace-delivered intervention comprising organisational, environmental and individual level behaviour change strategies aimed at reducing sitting time in desk-based workers. Sit-stand workstations were provided, and participants (n = 134; intervention group only) were guided by health coaches to identify strategies for the 'Stand Up', 'Sit Less', and 'Move More' intervention targets, including how long they would stand using the workstation. Three-month workplace sitting and activity changes (activPAL3-assessed total sitting, prolonged sitting (i.e., sitting ≥30 min continuously) and purposeful walking) were evaluated in relation to the number (regression analysis) and types of strategies (decision-tree analysis). RESULTS: Over 80 different strategies were nominated by participants. Each additional strategy nominated for the 'Stand Up' intervention target (i.e. number of strategies) was associated with a reduction in prolonged sitting of 27.6 min/8-h workday (95% CI: -53.1, - 2.1, p = 0.034). Types of strategies were categorised into 13 distinct categories. Strategies that were task-based and phone-based were common across all three targets. The decision tree models did not select any specific strategy category as predicting changes in prolonged sitting ('Stand Up'), however four strategy categories were identified as important for total sitting time ('Sit Less') and three strategy categories for purposeful walking ('Moving More'). The uppermost nodes (foremost predictors) were nominating > 3 h/day of workstation standing (reducing total workplace sitting) and choosing a 'Move More' task-based strategy (purposeful walking). CONCLUSIONS: Workers chose a wide range of strategies, with both strategy choice and strategy quantity appearing relevant to behavioural improvement. Findings support a tailored and pragmatic approach to encourage a change in sitting and activity in the workplace. Evaluating participant-selected strategies in the context of a successful intervention serves to highlight options that may prove feasible and effective in other desk-based workplace environments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials register ( ACTRN12611000742976 ) on 15 July 2011.

Correlates of physical activity and sedentary time in young adults: the Western Australian Pregnancy Cohort (Raine) Study.

BACKGROUND: The socioecological model proposes a wide array of factors that influence behaviours. There is a need to understand salient correlates of these activity behaviours in a specific population. However, few studies identified socio-demographic, behavioural, physical, and psychological correlates of objectively-assessed physical activity and sedentary time in young adults. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional analysis of participants in the Raine Study (a pregnancy cohort started in 1989). Australian young adults (mean 22.1 years ± SD 0.6) wore Actigraph GT3X+ accelerometers on the hip 24 h/day for seven days to assess moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and sedentary time (n = 256 women, n = 219 men). Potential correlates were assessed via clinical assessment and questionnaire and included socio-demographic variables (ethnicity, relationship status, work/study status, education, mothers education), health behaviours (food intake, alcohol consumption, smoking status, sleep quality), and physical and psychological health aspects (anthropometrics, diagnosed disorders, mental health, cognitive performance). Backwards elimination (p < 0.2 for retention) with mixed model regressions were used and the gender-stratified analyses were adjusted for demographic variables, waking wear time and number of valid days. RESULTS: Increased time spent in MVPA was associated with: being single (IRR 1.44 vs in a relationship living together, 95%CI: 1.17, 1.77, p = .001) in women; and better sleep quality in men (lower scores better IRR 0.97, 95%CI: 0.93, 1.00). Less time spent sedentary was associated with: lower mother's education (- 32.1 min/day, 95%CI -52.9, 11.3, p = 0.002 for having mother with no university degree vs at least a baccalaureate degree) and smoking (- 44.3 min/day, 95%CI: - 72.8, - 15.9, p = .0002) for women; lower education status (- 32.1 min/day, 95%CI: -59.5, - 4.8, p = 0.021 for having no university degree vs at least a baccalaureate degree) and lower depression scores in men (- 2.0, 95%CI: - 3.5, - 0.4, p = 0.014); more alcoholic drinks per week for women (- 1.9 min/day, 95%CI: -3.1, - 0.6, p = 0.003) and men (- 1.0, 95%CI: -1.8, - 0.3, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Less desirable correlates were associated with positive levels of activity in young Australian adult women and men. Interventions to increase MVPA and decrease sedentary activity in young adults need to specifically consider the life stage of young adults.

Associations of office workers' objectively assessed occupational sitting, standing and stepping time with musculoskeletal symptoms.

We examined the association of musculoskeletal symptoms (MSS) with workplace sitting, standing and stepping time, as well as sitting and standing time accumulation (i.e. usual bout duration of these activities), measured objectively with the activPAL3 monitor. Using baseline data from the Stand Up Victoria trial (216 office workers, 14 workplaces), cross-sectional associations of occupational activities with self-reported MSS (low-back, upper and lower extremity symptoms in the last three months) were examined using probit regression, correcting for clustering and adjusting for confounders. Sitting bout duration was significantly (p < 0.05) associated, non-linearly, with MSS, such that those in the middle tertile displayed the highest prevalence of upper extremity symptoms. Other associations were non-significant but sometimes involved large differences in symptom prevalence (e.g. 38%) by activity. Though causation is unclear, these non-linear associations suggest that sitting and its alternatives (i.e. standing and stepping) interact with MSS and this should be considered when designing safe work systems. Practitioner summary: We studied associations of objectively assessed occupational activities with musculoskeletal symptoms in office workers. Workers who accumulated longer sitting bouts reported fewer upper extremity symptoms. Total activity duration was not significantly associated with musculoskeletal symptoms. We underline the importance of considering total volumes and patterns of activity time in musculoskeletal research.

Intervening to reduce workplace sitting: mediating role of social-cognitive constructs during a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Stand Up Victoria multi-component intervention successfully reduced workplace sitting time in both the short (three months) and long (12 months) term. To further understand how this intervention worked, we aimed to assess the impact of the intervention on four social-cognitive constructs, and examined whether these constructs mediated intervention effects on workplace sitting time at 3 and 12 months post-baseline. METHODS: Two hundred and thirty one office-based workers (14 worksites, single government employer) were randomised to intervention or control conditions by worksite. The intervention comprised organisational, environmental, and individual level elements. Participant characteristics and social-cognitive constructs (perceived behavioural control, barrier self-efficacy, perceived organisational norms and knowledge) were measured through a self-administered online survey at baseline, 3 months and 12 months. Workplace sitting time (min/8 h day) was measured with the activPAL3 device. Single multi-level mediation models were performed for each construct at both time points. RESULTS: There were significant intervention effects at 3 months on perceived behavioural control, barrier self-efficacy and perceived organisational norms. Effects on perceived organisational norms were not significant at 12 months. Perceived behavioural control significantly mediated intervention effects at 3 months, accounting for a small portion of the total effect (indirect effect: -8.6 min/8 h day, 95% CI: -18.5, -3.6 min; 7.5% of total effect). At 12 months, barrier self-efficacy significantly mediated the intervention effects on workplace sitting time (indirect effect: -10.3 min/8 h day, 95% CI: -27.3, -2.2; 13.9% of total effect). No significant effects were observed for knowledge at either time point. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies that aim to increase workers' perceived control and self-efficacy over their sitting time may be helpful components of sedentary behaviour interventions in the workplace. However, social-cognitive factors only partially explain variation in workplace sitting reduction. Understanding the importance of other levels of influence (particularly interpersonal and environmental) for initiating and maintaining workplace sedentary behaviour change will be informative for intervention development and refinement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials register ( ACTRN12611000742976 ) on 15 July 2011.

Pre-existing low-back symptoms impact adversely on sitting time reduction in office workers.

OBJECTIVES: Initiatives to reduce office-workplace sitting are proliferating, but the impact of pre-existing musculoskeletal symptoms on their effectiveness has not been determined. We assessed the influence of musculoskeletal symptoms on the outcomes of a workplace sitting intervention. METHODS: Baseline and 3-month data from a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a workplace sitting intervention (Stand Up Victoria; trial registration number ACTRN12611000742976) were used. Office workers (n = 231) from 14 work teams within one organisation were randomised (by worksite) to a multicomponent program with individual-, organisational-, and environmental-level (sit-stand workstations) change strategies; or, to a control condition (no intervention). Musculoskeletal symptoms in the low-back, upper and lower extremities (present/absent) were assessed through self-report. Linear regression models tested the moderation by baseline musculoskeletal symptoms of intervention effects on workplace sitting and standing time and on sitting and standing bout durations, assessed by the activPAL3™ activity monitor. RESULTS: There were significant reductions in sitting and increased standing at work (p < 0.05). However, effects varied significantly by the presence of pre-existing low-back (but not other) symptoms, with greater benefit being seen in those without symptoms. Effects on sitting time and sitting bout duration were weaker in those with low-back symptoms compared to those without by 34.6 [95% CI (0.9; 68.3)] min/8-h workday and 5.1 [95% CI (0.2; 9.9)] min, respectively. Comparable effects were seen for standing. CONCLUSION: Low-back symptoms may impact on the extent to which office workers change their workplace sitting and standing time. A prudent next step to improve the effectiveness of workplace sitting-reduction initiatives such as Stand Up Victoria may be to assess and address the needs of those who displayed comparatively limited behaviour change, namely those with pre-existing low-back discomfort.

Living well after breast cancer randomized controlled trial protocol: evaluating a telephone-delivered weight loss intervention versus usual care in women following treatment for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Obesity, physical inactivity and poor diet quality have been associated with increased risk of breast cancer-specific and all-cause mortality as well as treatment-related side-effects in breast cancer survivors. Weight loss intervention trials in breast cancer survivors have shown that weight loss is safe and achievable; however, few studies have examined the benefits of such interventions on a broad range of outcomes and few have examined factors important to translation (e.g. feasible delivery method for scaling up, assessment of sustained changes, cost-effectiveness). The Living Well after Breast Cancer randomized controlled trial aims to evaluate a 12-month telephone-delivered weight loss intervention (versus usual care) on weight change and a range of secondary outcomes including cost-effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: Women (18-75 years; body mass index 25-45 kg/m2) diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer in the previous 2 years are recruited from public and private hospitals and through the state-based cancer registry (target n = 156). Following baseline assessment, participants are randomized 1:1 to either a 12-month telephone-delivered weight loss intervention (targeting diet and physical activity) or usual care. Data are collected at baseline, 6-months (mid-intervention), 12-months (end-of-intervention) and 18-months (maintenance). The primary outcome is change in weight at 12-months. Secondary outcomes are changes in body composition, bone mineral density, cardio-metabolic and cancer-related biomarkers, metabolic health and chronic disease risk, physical function, patient-reported outcomes (quality of life, fatigue, menopausal symptoms, body image, fear of cancer recurrence) and behaviors (dietary intake, physical activity, sitting time). Data collected at 18-months will be used to assess whether outcomes achieved at end-of-intervention are sustained six months after intervention completion. Cost-effectiveness will be assessed, as will mediators and moderators of intervention effects. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence needed to inform the wide-scale provision of weight loss, physical activity and dietary interventions as part of routine survivorship care for breast cancer survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTR) - ACTRN12612000997853 (Registered 18 September 2012).

Objectively measured patterns of sedentary time and physical activity in young adults of the Raine study cohort.

BACKGROUND: To provide a detailed description of young adults' sedentary time and physical activity. METHODS: 384 young women and 389 young men aged 22.1 ± 0.6 years, all participants in the 22 year old follow-up of the Raine Study pregnancy cohort, wore Actigraph GT3X+ monitors on the hip for 24 h/day over a one-week period for at least one 'valid' day (≥10 h of waking wear time). Each minute epoch was classified as sedentary, light, moderate or vigorous intensity using 100 count and Freedson cut-points. Mixed models assessed hourly and daily variation; t-tests assessed gender differences. RESULTS: The average (mean ± SD) waking wear time was 15.0 ± 1.6 h/day, of which 61.4 ± 10.1% was spent sedentary, 34.6 ± 9.1% in light-, 3.7 ± 5.3% in moderate- and, 0.3 ± 0.6% in vigorous-intensity activity. Average time spent in moderate to vigorous activity (MVPA) was 36.2 ± 27.5 min/day. Relative to men, women had higher sedentary time, but also higher vigorous activity time. The 'usual' bout duration of sedentary time was 11.8 ± 4.5 min in women and 11.7 ± 5.2 min in men. By contrast, other activities were accumulated in shorter bout durations. There was large variation by hour of the day and by day of the week in both sedentary time and MVPA. Evenings and Sundays through Wednesdays tended to be particularly sedentary and/or inactive. CONCLUSION: For these young adults, much of the waking day was spent sedentary and many participants were physically inactive (low levels of MVPA). We provide novel evidence on the time for which activities were performed and on the time periods when young adults were more sedentary and/or less active. With high sedentary time and low MVPA, young adults may be at risk for the life-course sequelae of these behaviours.

Replacing sitting time with standing or stepping: associations with cardio-metabolic risk biomarkers.

AIMS: While excessive sitting time is related adversely to cardio-metabolic health, it is unknown whether standing is a suitable replacement activity or whether ambulatory movement is required. Using isotemporal substitution analyses, we modelled cross-sectional associations with cardio-metabolic risk biomarkers of reallocating time (2 h/day) from sitting to standing or to stepping. METHODS AND RESULTS: A subsample of participants from the 2011/12 Australian Diabetes, Obesity, and Lifestyle Study wore the posture-based activPAL3 monitor [36-80 years (mean 57.9, SD 9.9 years); 57% women; n = 698 with data]. Associations of activPAL3-derived mean daily time sitting/lying (sitting), standing and stepping with body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, blood pressure, HbA1c, fasting glucose and lipids (high-density lipoprotein-, HDL, and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, total/HDL-cholesterol ratio, and triglycerides), and 2-h plasma glucose were examined. Adjusted for relevant confounders, sitting-to-standing reallocations were only significantly (P < 0.05) associated with approximately 2% lower fasting plasma glucose, 11% lower triglycerides, 6% lower total/HDL-cholesterol ratio, and 0.06 mmol/L higher HDL-cholesterol per 2 h/day. Sitting-to-stepping reallocations were only significantly associated with approximately 11% lower BMI, 7.5 cm lower waist circumference, 11% lower 2-h plasma glucose, 14% lower triglycerides, and 0.10 mmol/L higher HDL-cholesterol per 2 h/ day, while standing-to-stepping reallocations were only significantly associated with ∼10% lower BMI, 7 cm lower waist circumference, and 11% lower 2-h plasma glucose. CONCLUSION: Findings suggested that sitting-reduction strategies targeting increased standing, stepping, or both, may benefit cardio-metabolic health. Standing is a simple alternative to sitting, and requires further examination in prospective and intervention studies.

Reallocating time to sleep, sedentary behaviors, or active behaviors: associations with cardiovascular disease risk biomarkers, NHANES 2005-2006.

Sleep and sedentary and active behaviors are linked to cardiovascular disease risk biomarkers, and across a 24-hour day, increasing time in 1 behavior requires decreasing time in another. We explored associations of reallocating time to sleep, sedentary behavior, or active behaviors with biomarkers. Data (n = 2,185 full sample; n = 923 fasting subanalyses) from the cross-sectional 2005-2006 US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were analyzed. The amounts of time spent in sedentary behavior, light-intensity activity, and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) were derived from ActiGraph accelerometry (ActiGraph LLC, Pensacola, Florida), and respondents reported their sleep duration. Isotemporal substitution modeling indicated that, independent of potential confounders and time spent in other activities, beneficial associations (P < 0.05) with cardiovascular disease risk biomarkers were associated with the reallocation of 30 minutes/day of sedentary time with equal time of either sleep (2.2% lower insulin and 2.0% lower homeostasis model assessment of ß-cell function), light-intensity activity (1.9% lower triglycerides, 2.4% lower insulin, and 2.2% lower homeostasis model assessment of ß-cell function), or MVPA (2.4% smaller waist circumference, 4.4% higher high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, 8.5% lower triglycerides, 1.7% lower glucose, 10.7% lower insulin, and 9.7% higher homeostasis model assessment of insulin sensitivity. These findings provide evidence that MVPA may be the most potent health-enhancing, time-dependent behavior, with additional benefit conferred from light-intensity activities and sleep duration when reallocated from sedentary time.

Moderators of health behavior initiation and maintenance in a randomized telephone counseling trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study compares moderators of initiation and maintenance of health behavior changes. METHODS: Data come from a cluster-randomized, 12-month telephone counseling intervention for physical activity and diet, targeting type 2 diabetes or hypertension patients (n=434, Australia,2005-2007). Demographic and health-related characteristics, theoretical constructs, and baseline behavioral outcomes were considered as moderators. Mixed models, adjusting for baseline values, assessed moderation of intervention effects for trial outcomes (physical activity, intakes of fat, saturated fat, fiber, fruit, vegetables) at end-of-intervention (12 months/initiation) and maintenance follow-up (18 months), and compared moderation between these periods. RESULTS: Social support for physical activity and baseline physical activity were significant (p<0.05) moderators of physical activity at 12 months. Gender, marital status, social support for healthy eating, BMI, and number of chronic conditions were significant moderators of dietary changes at 12- and/or 18 months. Instances of moderation differing significantly between 12- and 18 months were: baseline physical activity for physical activity (initiation) and marital status for fat intake (maintenance). CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study showed that moderation of physical activity and diet effects sometimes differed between initiation and maintenance. To identify unique moderators for initiation and/or maintenance of behavior changes, future studies need to report on and statistically test for such differences.