Protocol for a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent sustainable return to work IGLOo intervention.

BACKGROUND: Long-term sickness costs businesses in the United Kingdom (UK) approximately £7 billion per annum. Most long-term sickness absences are attributed to common mental health conditions, which are also highly prevalent in people with acute or musculoskeletal health conditions. This study will pilot the IGLOo (Individual, Group, Leaders, Organisation, overarching context) intervention which aims to support workers in returning to and remaining in work following long-term sickness absence. The potential impact of the intervention is a timely return to work (main trial primary outcome) and prevention of a further episode of long-term sick leave. The intervention will be piloted in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine the feasibility of the intervention (pilot trial primary outcome) and to inform a fully powered definitive trial to evaluate sustainable return to work (RTW) in people with primary or secondary mental ill-health who go on long-term sick leave. METHODS AND DESIGN: A two-arm feasibility randomised controlled trial (with a 30-month study period including 12-month follow-up) of the IGLOo intervention will be conducted in large organisations (≥ 600 workers) from the Yorkshire and Humberside regions, in the UK. Eight consenting organisations will be recruited and randomised to the intervention or control arms of the study (1:1 ratio), with a minimum recruitment target of 13 workers eligible to participate from each. Organisations assigned to the control group will continue with their usual practice. Feasibility data will include data collected on recruitment, retention and attrition of participants; completion of research outcome measures; and intervention compliance. Measurements of mental health, RTW, work outcomes, quality-of-life, workplace support and communication and other demographic data will be taken at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months in all participants. Qualitative interviews and survey data with all participants will explore the experiences of participants, acceptability of the intervention components and evaluation measures. Exploratory economic evaluation will be conducted to further inform a definitive trial. DISCUSSION: The findings from this pilot study will help to inform the development of a definitive cluster RCT designed to examine the efficacy of this intervention on health and work-related outcomes in UK workers on long-term sick leave. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN11788559 (prospectively registered, date registered 6 October 2022).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Digital Training Program for Line Managers (Managing Minds at Work): Protocol for a Feasibility Pilot Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Mental health problems affect 1 in 6 workers annually and are one of the leading causes of sickness absence, with stress, anxiety, and depression being responsible for half of all working days lost in the United Kingdom. Primary interventions with a preventative focus are widely acknowledged as the priority for workplace mental health interventions. Line managers hold a primary role in preventing poor mental health within the workplace and, therefore, need to be equipped with the skills and knowledge to effectively carry out this role. However, most previous intervention studies have directly focused on increasing line managers' understanding and awareness of mental health rather than giving them the skills and competencies to take a proactive preventative approach in how they manage and design work. The Managing Minds at Work (MMW) digital training intervention was collaboratively designed to address this gap. The intervention aims to increase line managers' knowledge and confidence in preventing work-related stress and promoting mental health at work. It consists of 5 modules providing evidence-based interactive content on looking after your mental health, designing and managing work to promote mental well-being, management competencies that prevent work-related stress, developing a psychologically safe workplace, and having conversations about mental health at work. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study is to pilot and feasibility test MMW, a digital training intervention for line managers. METHODS: We use a cluster randomized controlled trial design consisting of 2 arms, the intervention arm and a 3-month waitlist control, in this multicenter feasibility pilot study. Line managers in the intervention arm will complete a baseline questionnaire at screening, immediately post intervention (approximately 6 weeks after baseline), and at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Line managers in the control arm will complete an initial baseline questionnaire, repeated after 3 months on the waitlist. They will then be granted access to the MMW intervention, following which they will complete the questionnaire post intervention. The direct reports of the line managers in both arms of the trial will also be invited to take part by completing questionnaires at baseline and follow-up. As a feasibility pilot study, a formal sample size is not required. A minimum of 8 clusters (randomized into 2 groups of 4) will be sought to inform a future trial from work organizations of different types and sectors. RESULTS: Recruitment for the study closed in January 2022. Overall, 24 organizations and 224 line managers have been recruited. Data analysis was finished in August 2023. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this feasibility study will provide insight into the usability and acceptability of the MMW intervention and its potential for improving line manager outcomes and those of their direct reports. These results will inform the development of subsequent trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05154019; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05154019. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/48758.

Using intervention mapping to develop evidence-based toolkits that support workers on long-term sick leave and their managers.

BACKGROUND: Managing long-term sickness absence is challenging in countries where employers and managers have the main responsibility to provide return to work support, particularly for workers with poor mental health. Whilst long-term sick leave and return to work frameworks and guidance exist for employers, there are currently no structured return to work protocols for employers or for their workers encompassing best practice strategies to support a positive and timely return to work outcome. PURPOSE: To utilise the intervention mapping (IM) protocol as a framework to develop return to work toolkits that are underpinned by relevant behaviour change theory targeting mental health to promote a positive return to work experiensce for workers on long-term sick leave. METHODS: This paper provides a worked example of intervention mapping (IM) to develop an intervention through a six-step process to combine theory and evidence in the development of two toolkits - one designed for managers and one to be used by workers on long-term sick leave. As part of this process, collaborative planning techniques were used to develop the intervention. A planning group was set up, through which researchers would work alongside employer, worker, and mental health professional representatives to develop the toolkits. Additionally, feedback on the toolkits were sought from the target populations of workers and managers and from wider employer stakeholders (e.g., human resource specialists). The implementation and evaluation of the toolkits as a workplace intervention were also planned. RESULTS: Two toolkits were designed following the six steps of intervention mapping. Feedback from the planning group (n = 5; psychologist, psychiatrist, person with previous experience of poor mental health, employer and charity worker) and participants (n = 14; employers = 3, wellbeing director = 1; human resources = 2, managers = 2, employees with previous experience of poor mental health = 5) target populations indicated that the toolkits were acceptable and much needed. CONCLUSIONS: Using IM allowed the development of an evidence-based practical intervention, whilst incorporating the views of all the impacted stakeholder groups. The feasibility and acceptability of the toolkits and their supporting intervention components, implementation process and methods of assessment will be evaluated in a feasibility pilot randomised controlled trial.

Work fatigue during COVID-19 lockdown teleworking: the role of psychosocial, environmental, and social working conditions.

Background: During national lockdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, previously office-based workers who transitioned to home-based teleworking faced additional demands (e.g., childcare, inadequate homeworking spaces) likely resulting in poor work privacy fit. Previous office research suggests poor work privacy fit is associated with lower wellbeing and higher work fatigue. Emerging evidence suggests a relationship between childcare duties during pandemic teleworking and work fatigue. In addition to psychosocial working conditions (job demand, job control, and job change management), which are acknowledged predictors of work fatigue, this poses a significant threat to occupational health during pandemic teleworking. However, the relative effects of aspects of the psychosocial environment (job demands and resources), the home office environment (including privacy fit), and the social environment (childcare) on work fatigue as well as their interactions are under-explored. Objective: This study examined the relationships between the psychosocial, environmental, and social working conditions of teleworking during the first COVID-19 lockdown and work fatigue. Specifically, the study examined teleworkers' physical work environment (e.g., if and how home office space is shared, crowding, and noise perceptions) as predictors of privacy fit and the relationship between privacy fit, childcare, psychosocial working conditions (job demand, job control, and job change management), and work fatigue. Work privacy fit was hypothesized to mediate the relationship between childcare and work fatigue. Methods: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted with teleworkers (n = 300) during the first COVID-19 lockdown in April and May 2020; most participants were in Germany, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Results: Path analysis was used to examine the hypothesized relationships. Privacy fit was lower for those reporting greater levels of noise in home-working spaces and those feeling crowded at home. Work fatigue was lower amongst those with greater privacy fit and higher amongst those with high levels of job demand. An indirect relationship was observed between childcare and work fatigue with privacy fit mediating this relationship. Conclusion: The influence of privacy fit has so far been largely neglected in research on teleworking, especially during the pandemic. However, its contribution to workers' wellbeing should be acknowledged in occupational health strategies.

Examining young people's views and understanding of traffic light and physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) food labels.

BACKGROUND: Childhood obesity is a public health challenge in many countries. Food labelling may help children make healthier food choices. Food is typically labelled using the traffic light label system but this is complex to understand. Physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) labelling may be easier for children to understand and more appealing because it contextualises the energy content of food/drinks. METHODS: A cross-sectional online questionnaire was completed by 808 adolescents aged 12-18 years in England. The questionnaire investigated participants' views and understanding of traffic light and PACE labels. Participants were also asked about their understanding of the meaning of calories. The questionnaire explored participants' views about the potential frequency of use of PACE labels and their perceived usefulness in influencing purchasing and consumption decisions. Questions that explored participants' views about the possible implementation of PACE labelling, preferences for food settings and types of food/drinks they may like such labelling implemented, and whether PACE labels would encourage physical activity were included. Descriptive statistics were explored. Analyses assessed associations between variables and tested differences in the proportions of views about the labels. RESULTS: More participants reported PACE labels as easier to understand than traffic light labels (69% vs 31%). Of participants who had seen traffic light labels, 19% looked at them often/always. Forty-two percent of participants would look at PACE labels often/always. The most common reason why participants never/would never look at food labels is because they are not interested in making healthy choices. Fifty-two percent of participants said PACE labels would make it easier for them to choose healthy food and drinks. Fifty percent of participants reported PACE labels would encourage them to be physically active. It was perceived that PACE labels could be useful in a range of food settings and on a range of food/drinks. CONCLUSIONS: PACE labelling may be easier for young people to understand and more appealing/useful to them than traffic light labelling. PACE labelling may help young people choose healthier food/drinks and reduce excess energy consumption. Research is now needed to understand the impact of PACE labelling on food choice among adolescents in real eating settings.

Supporting employers and their employees with Mental hEalth problems to remain eNgaged and producTive at wORk (MENTOR): A feasibility randomised controlled trial protocol.

Employees with mental health problems often struggle to remain in employment. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these employees face multiple additional stressors, which are likely to worsen their mental health and work productivity. Currently, it is unclear how to best support employees with mental health problems (and their managers) to improve wellbeing and productivity. We aim to develop a new intervention (MENTOR) that will jointly involve employees, managers, and a new professional (mental health employment liaison worker, MHELW), to help employees who are still at work with a mental health condition and currently receiving professional support for their mental health. A feasibility pilot study will then be undertaken to examine the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention from the perspective of employees and line managers. The study involves a feasibility randomised controlled study comparing outcomes of participants randomised to receive the intervention (MENTOR) with wait-list controls. Participants allocated to the waitlist control group will receive the intervention after three months. We aim to randomise 56 employee-manager pairs recruited from multiple organisations in the Midlands region of England. An intervention including 10 sessions for employees and managers (3 individual sessions and 4 joint sessions) will be delivered over 12 weeks by trained MHELWs. Primary outcomes include measures of feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and work productivity. Secondary outcomes include mental health outcomes. Qualitative interviews will be undertaken with a purposively selected sub-sample of employees and line managers at three-month post-intervention assessment. To our knowledge, this will be the first trial with a joint employee-manager intervention delivered by MHELWs. Anticipated challenges are dual-level consent (employees and managers), participants' attrition, and recruitment strategies. If the intervention and trial processes are shown to be feasible and acceptable, the outcomes from this study will inform future randomised controlled trials. Trial registration: This trial is pre-registered with the ISRCTN registry, registration number: ISRCTN79256498. Protocol version: 3.0_March_2023. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN79256498.

Receiving and breaking bad news: A qualitative study of family carers managing a cancer diagnosis and interactions with healthcare services.

AIMS: To explore family carer experiences of managing the process of receiving and breaking bad news about cancer. BACKGROUND: Family carers' experiences of bad news are underrepresented in the literature. This study involved oncology staff with personal experience of caregiving and carers to develop broader insights into the range of needs and difficulties experienced by family members in the process of managing a cancer diagnosis. This can help facilitate subsequent interactions with healthcare professionals and improve continuity of care. DESIGN: This is a descriptive qualitative study informed by the theory of social constructionism. Data were analysed using template analysis. METHODS: Data were collected using semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 4 healthcare professionals and 17 family carers between January and July 2018. A purposive sampling strategy was used. Interviews were transcribed verbatim to explore participant experiences and perspectives on family carers managing a cancer diagnosis. FINDINGS: Three key themes were identified: (1) receiving the bad news; (2) management of bad news and (3) interaction with healthcare and support services. These and associated subthemes are discussed, with recommendations for future research and practice. CONCLUSIONS: There was variability in the experiences and needs of carers involved in receiving and breaking the bad news. IMPACT: Although family members experienced a multitude of difficult emotions when the bad news was shared, they were not often able to discern help from healthcare professionals with sharing the diagnosis with the patient and others. This impacted on access to and use of healthcare and support services. Individualized approaches to communication are needed to enable carers to seek support and provide perspectives on the patient home environment and family structure. This can help tailor breaking the bad news and care plans. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Anonymised results were shared with family carers to validate the congruency of the codes with their experiences.

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.

Protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled study of a multicomponent intervention to promote a sustainable return to work of workers on long-term sick leave - PROWORK: PROmoting a Sustainable and Healthy Return to WORK.

BACKGROUND: The cost of sickness absence has major social, psychological and financial implications for individuals and organisations. Return-to-work (RTW) interventions that support good quality communication and contact with the workplace can reduce the length of sickness absence by between 15 and 30 days. However, initiatives promoting a sustainable return to work for workers with poor mental health on long-term sickness absence across small, medium and large enterprises (SMEs and LEs) are limited. This paper describes the protocol of a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the feasibility of implementing a RTW intervention across SMEs and LEs across all sectors. METHODS AND DESIGN: A two-arm feasibility RCT with a 4-month intervention will be conducted in SMEs and LE enterprises from the Midlands region, UK. At least 8 organisations (4 controls and interventions), and at least 60 workers and/or managers, will be recruited and randomised into the intervention and control group (30 interventions, 30 controls). Workers on long-term sickness absence (LTSA) (between 8 and 50 days) and managers with a worker on LTSA will be eligible to participate. The intervention is a behavioural change programme, including a managers and workers RTW toolkit, focused on supporting sickness absence and RTW through the provision of knowledge, problem-solving, action planning, goal setting and positive communication that leads to a sustainable RTW. Organisations assigned to the control group will continue with their usual practice. Measurements of mental health, RTW, work outcomes, quality-of-life, workplace support and communication and other demographic data will be taken at baseline, 2 months and 4 months. Feasibility will be assessed based on recruitment, retention, attrition, completion of measures and intervention compliance for which specific process and research outcomes have been established. A process evaluation will explore the experiences and acceptability of the intervention components and evaluation measures. Exploratory economic evaluation will be conducted to further inform a definitive trial. DISCUSSION: This is a novel intervention using a worker-manager approach to promote a sustainable return to work of workers on long-term sick leave due to poor mental wellbeing. If this intervention is shown to be feasible, the outcomes will inform a larger scale randomised control trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN90032009 (retrospectively registered, date registered 15th December 2020).

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

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

Managing Minds at Work: Development of a Digital Line Manager Training Program.

Mental ill-health is the leading cause of sickness absence, creating a high economic burden. Workplace interventions aimed at supporting employers in the prevention of mental ill-health in the workforce are urgently required. Managing Minds at Work is a digital intervention aimed at supporting line managers in promoting better mental health at work through a preventative approach. This intervention was developed as part of the Mental Health and Productivity Pilot, a wider initiative aimed at supporting employers across the Midlands region of the United Kingdom to improve the future of workplace mental health and wellbeing. The aim of the study is to describe the design and development of the Managing Minds at Work digital training program, prior to feasibility testing. We adopted a collaborative participatory design involving co-design (users as partners) and principles of user-centred design (pilot and usability testing). An agile methodology was used to co-create intervention content with a stakeholder virtual community of practice. Development processes were mapped to core elements of the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions. The program covers five broad areas: (i) promoting self-care techniques among line managers; (ii) designing work to prevent work-related stress; (iii) management competencies to prevent and reduce stress; (iv) having conversations with employees about mental health; (v) building a psychologically safe work environment. It was considered by stakeholders to be appropriate for any type of organization, irrespective of their size or resources. Pilot and usability testing (n = 37 surveys) aligned with the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) demonstrated that the program was perceived to be useful, relevant, and easy to use by managers across sectors, organization types, and sizes. We identified positive impacts on manager attitudes and behavioral intentions related to preventing mental ill-health and promoting good mental wellbeing at work. The next step is to explore the feasibility and acceptability of Managing Minds at Work with line managers in diverse employment settings.

The structured health intervention for truckers (SHIFT) cluster randomised controlled trial: a mixed methods process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: This paper presents the mixed methods process evaluation of the randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the Structured Health Intervention For Truckers (SHIFT), a multi-component intervention targeting physical activity and positive lifestyle behaviours in a cohort of 382 truck drivers in the UK. The SHIFT RCT found a significant difference in daily steps between intervention and control groups at 6-months in favour of the intervention participants. METHODS: SHIFT was evaluated within a cluster-RCT and involved 25 transport sites (12 intervention and 13 control sites). Intervention components included an education session, Fitbit, text messages, and cab workout equipment. Participants completed questionnaires at baseline and 6-months follow-up. Semi-structured focus groups/interviews were conducted with drivers (n = 19) and managers (n = 18) from each site, after completion of the final follow-up health assessment (16-18 months post-randomisation). Questionnaires and interviews collected information on fidelity, dose, context, implementation, barriers, sustainability, and contamination. RESULTS: Questionnaire and interview data from intervention participants indicated favourable attitudes towards SHIFT, specifically towards the Fitbit with a high proportion of drivers reporting regularly using it (89.1%). 79.2% of intervention participants attended the education session, which was deemed useful for facilitating improvements in knowledge and behaviour change, dietary changes were predominantly recalled. Despite not being part of the intervention, participants reported that feedback from the health assessments motivated them to change aspects of their lifestyle (intervention = 91.1%, control = 67.5%). The cab workout equipment was used less and spoken unfavourably of in the interviews. The main barriers to a healthy lifestyle at work were reported as long hours and irregular shift patterns. The most suggested improvement for the intervention was more frequent contact with drivers. Managers were positive about the objectives of SHIFT, however almost all mentioned the challenges related to implementation, specifically in smaller sites. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, SHIFT was predominantly implemented as intended, with minimal discrepancies seen between the delivery and protocol. Having said this, transport sites each have distinct characteristics, which may require adaptations to individual settings to encourage participation. Managers and drivers reported enthusiasm and necessity for SHIFT to be included in future Certificate of Professional Competence training. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN10483894 (date registered: 01/03/2017).

Future Teleworking Inclinations Post-COVID-19: Examining the Role of Teleworking Conditions and Perceived Productivity.

Organisations have implemented intensive home-based teleworking in response to global COVID-19 lockdowns and other pandemic-related restrictions. Financial pressures are driving organisations to continue intensive teleworking after the pandemic. Understanding employees' teleworking inclinations post COVID-19, and how these inclinations are influenced by different factors, is important to ensure any future, more permanent changes to teleworking policies are sustainable for both employees and organisations. This study, therefore, investigated the relationships between the context of home-based teleworking during the pandemic (pandemic-teleworking conditions), productivity perceptions during home-based teleworking, and employees' future teleworking inclinations (FTI) beyond the pandemic. Specifically, the study examined whether pandemic-teleworking conditions related to the job, and the physical and social environments at home, influenced employees' FTI, and if perceptions of improved or reduced productivity mediated these relationships. Data were collected during April and May 2020 with a cross-sectional online survey of teleworkers (n = 184) in Germany, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and other countries during the first COVID-19 lockdowns. Reported FTI were mixed. Most participants (61%) reported wanting to telework more post-pandemic compared to before the pandemic; however, 18% wanted to telework less. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis revealed that some teleworking conditions (job demands and work privacy fit) were positively associated with FTI. Other teleworking conditions (specifically, job change, job control, home office adequacy, and childcare) were not associated with FTI. Perceived changes in productivity mediated the relationship between work privacy fit and FTI. Findings highlight the role of work privacy fit and job demands in influencing pandemic productivity perceptions and teleworking inclinations post-pandemic. Results raise questions about the suitability and sustainability of home-based teleworking for all staff. As organisations plan to increase the proportion of teleworking post-pandemic, this study suggests there is a need to support employees who perceived their productivity to be poor while home-working during the pandemic.

The effectiveness of the Structured Health Intervention For Truckers (SHIFT): a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT).

BACKGROUND: Long distance heavy goods vehicle (HGV) drivers exhibit higher than nationally representative rates of obesity, and obesity-related co-morbidities, and are underserved in terms of health promotion initiatives. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the multicomponent 'Structured Health Intervention For Truckers' (SHIFT), compared to usual care, at 6- and 16-18-month follow-up. METHODS: We conducted a two-arm cluster RCT in transport sites throughout the Midlands, UK. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline, at 6- and 16-18-month follow-up. Clusters were randomised (1:1) following baseline measurements to either the SHIFT arm or usual practice control arm. The 6-month SHIFT programme included a group-based interactive 6-h education and behaviour change session, health coach support and equipment provision (Fitbit® and resistance bands/balls to facilitate a 'cab workout'). The primary outcome was device-assessed physical activity (mean steps/day) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included the following: device-assessed sitting, physical activity intensity and sleep; cardiometabolic health, diet, mental wellbeing and work-related psychosocial variables. Data were analysed using mixed-effect linear regression models using a complete-case population. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-two HGV drivers (mean ± SD age: 48.4 ± 9.4 years, BMI: 30.4 ± 5.1 kg/m2, 99% male) were recruited across 25 clusters (sites) and randomised into either the SHIFT (12 clusters, n = 183) or control (13 clusters, n = 199) arms. At 6 months, 209 (55%) participants provided primary outcome data. Significant differences in mean daily steps were found between groups, in favour of the SHIFT arm (adjusted mean difference: 1008 steps/day, 95% CI: 145-1871, p = 0.022). Favourable differences were also seen in the SHIFT group, relative to the control group, in time spent sitting (- 24 mins/day, 95% CI: - 43 to - 6), and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (6 mins/day, 95% CI: 0.3-11). Differences were not maintained at 16-18 months. No differences were observed between groups in the other secondary outcomes at either follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The SHIFT programme led to a potentially clinically meaningful difference in daily steps, between trial arms, at 6 months. Whilst the longer-term impact is unclear, the programme offers potential to be incorporated into driver training courses to promote activity in this at-risk, underserved and hard-to-reach essential occupational group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN10483894 (date registered: 01/03/2017).

A qualitative exploration of physical and psychosocial well-being in the short and long term after treatments for cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Cervical cancer is predominantly a cancer of younger women, and improvements in oncological outcomes have led to an increase in cervical cancer survivors living with the long-term effects of treatment. Understanding the recovery process after treatment is essential to increase awareness of the short- and long-term needs of survivors. The aim of this study was to qualitatively explore the recovery process and return to daily activity of cervical cancers survivors from a biopsychosocial perspective. METHODS: Participants were 21 women treated for cervical cancer between the ages of 18 and 60 years, living in the United Kingdom. Interviews were undertaken face to face and via the telephone using a semi-structured interview schedule. RESULTS: Data analysis revealed themes which represented participants' experience and perceptions of treatment as a paradox; emotional needs after treatment; and a journey of adversarial growth. A key finding from this analysis was the nuanced experiences between treatment modalities, with physical changes perceived to be more disruptive following radical treatments, whilst psychological repercussions were significant regardless of treatment type. CONCLUSION: This study provides novel insight into the varied recovery experiences of those treated with surgery and/or chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer, which can be used to improve the survivorship experience.

ACCEPTANCE: protocol for a feasibility study of a multicomponent physical activity intervention following treatment for cervical cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Cervical cancer treatment can have life changing sequelae and be associated with poor short-term and long-term quality of life. Physical activity (PA; that is, bodily movement) is known to improve health outcomes and quality of life for cancer survivors, both physically and psychologically. To date, no interventions to increase PA following cervical cancer have been evaluated. This study aims to (1) determine the feasibility of conducting a PA intervention after cervical cancer and (2) to explore the acceptability of the programme and evaluation measures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The design is a pre study and post study design. Thirty participants aged between 18 and 60 years from the Midlands region, UK, who have completed primary treatment for cervical cancer at least 6 months previously and do not meet the national PA guidelines will be recruited. Identification of potential participants will take place through the University Hospitals of Leicester National Health Service (NHS) Trust. Participants will receive an intervention focused on increasing PA through the provision of education, action planning, goal setting, problem solving and self-monitoring of PA behaviour, particularly steps per day. Device assessed PA and questionnaires will be completed at baseline, week 6, week 12 and week 24. Feasibility will be assessed in terms of recruitment, retention, attrition, completion of measures and intervention compliance, for which specific feasibility criteria have been established. The process evaluation will explore the experiences and acceptability of the intervention components and evaluation measures. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 1 for this study. Results will inform intervention refinement for the design of a definitive pilot trial. These results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and international conferences while input from a patient and public involvement (PPI) group will inform effective ways to circulate results among the wider community. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16349793, Registered 30 September 2020.

Cross-sectional associations between domain-specific sitting time and other lifestyle health behaviours: the Stormont study.

BACKGROUND: There is a dearth of literature on how different domains of sitting time relate to other health behaviours. Therefore, this study aimed to explore these associations in a sample of office workers. METHODS: 7170 Northern Irish Civil Servants completed an online survey which included information on workday and non-workday sitting time in five domains (travel, work, TV, computer-use, leisure-time), physical activity, fruit and vegetable intake, alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking. An unhealthy behaviour score was calculated by summing the number of health behaviours which did not meet the current guidelines. Multinomial regressions examined associations between unhealthy behaviour score and each domain of sitting time. RESULTS: ≥7 hours sitting at work and ≥2 hours TV viewing on a workday both more than doubled the odds of partaking in ≥3 unhealthy behaviours [Odds ratio, OR = 2.03, 95% CI, (1.59-2.61); OR = 2.19 (1.71-2.80)] and ≥3 hours of TV viewing on a non-workday nearly tripled the odds [OR = 2.96 (2.32-3.77)]. CONCLUSIONS: High sitting time at work and TV viewing on a workday and non-workday are associated with increased odds of partaking in multiple unhealthy behaviours. Interventions need to focus on these domains and public health policy should consider sitting time as an important health behaviour.