Mixed-methods process evaluation of the Dynamic Work study: A multicomponent intervention for office workers to reduce sitting time.

Previously, we observed no significant reductions in sitting time of the multicomponent Dynamic Work (DW) intervention among office workers. In this study we used mixed-method data to understand context, implementation (i.e. recruitment and delivery) and mechanism of impact (i.e. experiences) of the DW intervention and to explore whether an higher implementation index score led to larger changes in participants' outcomes. We found considerable variation across departments regarding context (i.e. different size and work tasks) and implementation (i.e. delivery varied). Satisfaction with the DW intervention was high. An higher implementation index score was associated with lower overall sitting time, lower occupational sitting time, higher number of steps/day and steps/day at work at 4-months, which was maintained at 8-month for occupational sitting time. These findings provide an understanding that implementation was affected by a lack of availability of intervention components, department policy, work tasks, positioning and work location. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, registration number:NCT03115645. Registered February 17, 2017 - Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03115645.

The user and non-user perspective: Experiences of office workers with long-term access to sit-stand workstations.

OBJECTIVE: Sit-stand workstations have been shown to be effective in reducing sitting time in office workers. The aim of this study was to explore reasons for use and non-use of sit-stand workstations and strategies to decrease sitting and increase physical activity in the workplace from perspectives of users and non-users, as well as from managers and ergo-coaches. METHODS: Six group interviews with employees who have had access to sit-stand workstations for several years were conducted in a large semi-governmental organisation in the Netherlands. Verbatim transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Open coding was conducted by three researchers and codes and themes were discussed within the research team. RESULTS: Thematic analysis resulted in two major themes: 1) Reasons for use and non-use and 2) Strategies to increase standing and physical activity in the workplace. Shared and distinct reasons for use and non-use were identified between users and non-users of the sit-stand workstations. The most important reasons for use indicated by users were that they had experiencing immediate benefits, including staying alert and increasing focus; these benefits were not acknowledged by non-users. Non-users indicated that sitting was comfortable for them and that they were therefore not motivated to use the standing option. Strategies to increase the use of the standing option included an introductory phase to become familiar with working while standing and to experience the immediate benefits that come from using the standing option. Furthermore, providing reminders to use the standing option was suggested as a strategy to increase and sustain the use of sit-stand workstations. Increased use may lead to a change in the sitting culture within the organisation, as more employees would adopt active movement behaviours. CONCLUSION: Immediate benefits of the use of the standing option-only mentioned by the users-was the most distinct reason to use sit-stand workstations. Future research should explore how to motivate potential users to adhere to an introductory phase in order to experience these immediate benefits, whether it is linked to the use of sit-stand workstations or other interventions to reduce sitting time.

Natural Patterns of Sitting, Standing and Stepping During and Outside Work-Differences between Habitual Users and Non-Users of Sit-Stand Workstations.

Sit-stand workstations have shown to reduce sitting time in office workers on a group level. However, movement behaviour patterns might differ between subgroups of workers. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine sitting, standing and stepping outcomes between habitual users and non-users of sit-stand workstations. From an international office population based in the Netherlands, 24 users and 25 non-users of sit-stand workstations were included (all had long-term access to these workstations). Using the ActivPAL, sitting, standing and stepping were objectively measured during and outside working hours. Differences in outcomes between users and non-users were analysed using linear regression. During working hours, users sat less (-1.64; 95% IC= -2.27--1.01 hour/8 hour workday) and stood more (1.51; 95% IC= 0.92-2.10 hour/8 hour workday) than non-users. Attenuated but similar differences were also found for total sitting time over the whole week. Furthermore, time in static standing bouts was relatively high for users during working hours (median= 0.56; IQR = 0.19-1.08 hour/8 hour workday). During non-working hours on workdays and during non-working days, no differences were found between users and non-users. During working hours, habitual users of their sit-stand workstation sat substantially less and stood proportionally more than non-users. No differences were observed outside working hours, leading to attenuated but similar differences in total sitting and standing time between users and non-users for total days. This indicated that the users of sit-stand workstations reduced their sitting time at work, but this seemed not to be accompanied by major carry-over or compensatory effects outside working hours.

Cost-Effectiveness and Return-on-Investment of the Dynamic Work Intervention Compared With Usual Practice to Reduce Sedentary Behavior.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment (ROI) of the Dynamic Work (DW) Intervention, a worksite intervention aimed at reducing sitting time among office workers. METHODS: In total, 244 workers were randomized to the intervention or control group. Overall sitting time, standing time, step counts, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs were measured over 12 months. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective and the ROI analysis from the employers' perspective. RESULTS: No significant differences in effects and societal costs were observed between groups. Presenteeism costs were significantly lower in the intervention group. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 0.90 at a willingness-to-pay of 20,000&OV0556;/QALY. The probability of financial savings was 0.86. CONCLUSION: The intervention may be considered cost-effective from the societal perspective depending on the willingness-to-pay. From the employer perspective, the intervention seems cost-beneficial.

Effectiveness of the multi-component dynamic work intervention to reduce sitting time in office workers - Results from a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Prolonged sitting, which is highly prevalent in office workers, has been associated with several health risks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the Dynamic Work intervention by determining its effect on total sitting time at the 8-month follow-up in comparison to the control. METHODS: This two-arm pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial included 244 office workers from 14 different departments of a large, Dutch insurance company. The Dynamic Work intervention was a real-life, worksite intervention that included environmental components (i.e. sit-stand workstations), organisational components (i.e. group sessions), and individual components (e.g. activity/sitting trackers). Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 4-month follow-up, and 8-month follow-up. The primary outcome was total sitting time per day, objectively assessed using the activPAL activity monitor at 8-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included other total and occupational movement behaviour outcomes, health-related outcomes, and work-related outcomes. Data analyses were performed using linear and logistic mixed models. RESULTS: Total sitting time did not differ between the intervention and control group at the 8-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes also showed no difference between the intervention and control group at either the 4-month or at 8-month follow-up, with the exception of number of occupational steps, which showed a statistically significant effect at 4-month follow-up (but not at 8-month follow-up) of 913 (95% CI = 381-1445) steps/8-h working day. CONCLUSIONS: This study evaluated the effectiveness of a real-life worksite intervention to reduce sitting time and showed little to no effect. This may be due to the relatively low intensity of the intervention, i.e. that it only involved the replacement of 25% of sitting workstations with sit-stand workstations. Future research should focus on the evaluation of more intensive real-life worksite interventions that are still feasible for implementation in daily practice. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV, REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03115645.

The Dynamic Work study: study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial of an occupational health intervention aimed at reducing sitting time in office workers.

BACKGROUND: Large volumes of sitting time have been associated with multiple health risks. To reduce sitting time of office workers working for a Dutch insurance company, the Dynamic Work intervention was developed. The primary objective of this paper is to describe the study protocol of the Dynamic Work study, which aims to evaluate if this multicomponent intervention is (cost-)effective in reducing total sitting time on the short-term (≈3 months) and longer-term (≈12 months) compared to usual practice. METHODS/DESIGN: This two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial will recruit 250 desk-based office workers working at different locations of an insurance company in the Netherlands. After baseline measurements, departments will be matched in pairs and each pair will be randomly assigned to the control or intervention condition. The multicomponent intervention contains organizational (i.e. face to face session with the head of the department), work environmental (i.e. the introduction of sit-stand desks and cycling workstations), and individual elements (i.e. counselling and activity/sitting tracker with a self-help program booklet). The counselling involves two group intervention sessions and four on-site department consultations with an occupational physiotherapist. Sitting time (primary outcome), upright time and step counts will be assessed objectively using the activPAL activity monitor at baseline, short-term (approximately 3 months) and longer-term (12 months). Other outcomes will include: self-reported lifestyle behaviours, anthropometrics, work-related outcomes (i.e. absenteeism, presenteeism, work performance, work-related stress), health-related outcomes (i.e. vitality, musculoskeletal symptoms, need for recovery, quality of life), and costs from both company and societal perspective. The study will include economic and process evaluations. DISCUSSION: This study will assess the longer-term (cost-) effectiveness of a multicomponent workplace intervention aimed at reducing sitting time in comparison with usual practice. Furthermore, the process evaluation will provide insights in factors associated with successful implementation of this intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03115645 ; Registered 13 April 2017. Retrospectively registered.

Long-Term Access to Sit-Stand Workstations in a Large Office Population: User Profiles Reveal Differences in Sitting Time and Perceptions.

Background: To decrease the detrimental health effects of prolonged sitting, the implementation of sit-stand workstations is a commonly used intervention for office workers. Most studies on this topic evaluated the effects of newly introduced sit-stand workstations. The objective of this study was to determine how often and how long the standing option is used and how the use of sit-stand workstations is perceived in office workers with long-term access to these workstations. Methods: Using an online survey, 1098 office employees responded to questions about frequency of usage of the sit-stand workstation, sitting time, physical activity, and positive and negative perceptions of the use of the sit-stand workstations. Results: Based on the frequency of use, three user groups were identified: non-users (32.1%), monthly/weekly users (37.5%) and daily users (30.4%). Non-users reported to sit more, stand less and have longer bouts of sitting, compared to monthly/weekly users, and these differences were even larger compared to daily users. A higher proportion of daily users perceived the use of the sit-stand workstation as being more healthy and appealing and making them more productive and energetic compared to the non-users. A higher proportion of the non-users perceived it as being uncomfortable, distracting, and unpractical, compared to the other user groups. Conclusions: The differences between the three identified user groups with respect to sitting, standing and perceptions of sit-stand workstations, might be helpful in tailoring future interventions to reduce occupational sitting time, to increase the reach, effectiveness and sustainability.

'The End of Sitting' in a public space: observations of spontaneous visitors.

BACKGROUND: Sitting too much has been associated with negative health outcomes. 'The End of Sitting' is a newly developed office landscape that moves away from the traditional chair-desk setup. The landscape aims to reduce sitting time by offering a variety of (supported) standing positions. The aim of this study was to determine the usage of the landscape after being placed in the main entrance hall of the VU University in Amsterdam. METHODS: We observed the number of spontaneous visitors as well as the duration of visits, changes to another location within the landscape, and adopted postures. Using questionnaires reasons (not) to visit the landscape, perceived affordances of the landscape and associations with long-term use were determined. RESULTS: Observed numbers of visitors were relatively low and duration of visits were short, which seemed to indicate visitors were trying out the landscape. The majority of visitors were in an upright position, reflecting the designers' intentions. Visitors indicated that long-term use would be pleasant to them. CONCLUSION: 'The End of Sitting' landscape received positive reactions but number of visits were limited in the few months that it was placed in the university main entrance hall. The landscape might be better suited for designated working or study spaces, for which it was originally intended. It might also be worth to explore the landscapes suitability for short stay environments, such as waiting rooms.