An Integrative, Systematic Review Exploring the Research, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance of Interventions to Reduce Sedentary Behaviour in Office Workers.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: MacDonald B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6313589 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThere is a clear public health need to reduce office workers' sedentary behaviors (SBs), especially in the workplace. Digital technologies are increasingly being deployed in the workplace to measure and modify office workers' SBs. However, knowledge of the range and nature of research on this topic is limited; it also remains unclear to what extent digital interventions have exploited the technological possibilities.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate the technological landscape of digital interventions for SB reduction in office workers and to map the research activity in this field.MethodsTerms related to SB, office worker, and digital technology were applied in various combinations to search Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, Scopus, Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library, Engineering index Compendex, and Google Scholar for the years 2000 to 2017. Data regarding the study and intervention details were extracted. Interventions and studies were categorized into development, feasibility and/piloting, evaluation, or implementation phase based on the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions. A novel framework was developed to classify technological features and annotate technological configurations. A mix of quantitative and qualitative approaches was used to summarize data.ResultsWe identified 68 articles describing 45 digital interventions designed to intervene with office workers' SB. A total of 6 common technological features had been applied to interventions with various combinations. Configurations such as "information delivery and mediated organizational and social support" and "digital log and automated tailored feedback" were well established in evaluation and implementation studies; in contrast, the integration of passive data collection, connected devices, and ATF or scheduled prompts was mostly present in development and piloting research.ConclusionsThis review is the first to map and describe the use of digital technologies in research on SB reduction in office workers. Interdisciplinary collaborations can help to maximize the potential of technologies. As novel modes of delivery that capitalize on embedded computing and electronics, wireless technologies have been developed and piloted in engineering, computing, and design fields, efforts can be directed to move them to the next phase of evaluation with more rigorous study designs. Quality of research may be improved by fostering conversations between different research communities and encouraging researchers to plan, conduct, and report their research under the MRC framework. This review will be particularly informative to those deciding on areas where further research or development is needed and to those looking to locate the relevant expertise, resources, and design inputs when designing their own systems or interventions.
| S-EPMC6383116 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Qualitative studies identified barriers and facilitators associated with work-related sedentary behaviour. The objective of this study was to determine common perceived barriers and facilitators among office workers, assess subgroup differences, and describe sedentary behaviour. From two Swedish companies, 547 office workers (41 years (IQR = 35–48), 65% women, 66% highly educated) completed questionnaires on perceived barriers and facilitators, for which subgroup differences in age, gender, education, and workplace sedentary behaviour were assessed. Sedentary behaviour was measured using inclinometers (n = 311). The most frequently reported barrier was sitting is a habit (67%), which was reported more among women than men (Χ² = 5.14, p = 0.03) and more among highly sedentary office workers (Χ² = 9.26, p < 0.01). The two other most reported barriers were that standing is uncomfortable (29%) and standing is tiring (24%). Facilitators with the most support were the introduction of either standing- or walking-meetings (respectively 33% and 29%) and more possibilities or reminders for breaks (31%). The proportion spent sedentary was 64% at the workplace, 61% on working days, and 57% on non-working days. This study provides a detailed understanding of office workers’ ideas about sitting and means to reduce sitting. We advise to include the supported facilitators and individualized support in interventions to work towards more effective strategies to reduce sedentary behaviour.
| S-EPMC5923834 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundOffice workers spend a significant part of their workday sitting. Interventions that aim to reduce sedentary behaviour and increase physical activity might be more effective if greater attention is paid to individual perspectives that influence behavioural choices, including beliefs and values. This study aimed to gain insight into office workers' perspectives on physical activity and sedentary behaviour.MethodsSixteen Dutch office workers (50% female) from different professions participated in semi-structured face-to-face interviews in March 2019. To facilitate the interviews, participants received a sensitizing booklet one week before the interview. The booklet aimed to trigger them to reflect on their physical activity and sedentary behaviour and on their values in life. All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and coded following codebook thematic analysis.ResultsSix themes were identified: 1) beliefs about health effects are specific regarding physical activity, but superficial regarding sedentary behaviour; 2) in addition to 'health' as a value, other values are also given priority; 3) motivations to engage in physical activity mainly stem from prioritizing the value 'health', reflected by a desire to both achieve positive short/mid-term outcomes and to prevent long-term negative outcomes; 4) attitudes towards physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour are diverse and depend on individual values and previous experiences; 5) perceived barriers depend on internal and external factors; 6) supporting factors are related to support and information in the social and physical environment.ConclusionsThe great value that office workers attach to health is reflected in their motivations and attitudes regarding physical activity. Increasing office workers' knowledge of the health risks of prolonged sitting may therefore increase their motivation to sit less. Although 'health' is considered important, other values, including social and work-related values, are sometimes prioritized. We conclude that interventions that aim to reduce sedentary behaviour and increase physical activity among office workers could be improved by informing about health effects of sedentary behaviour and short/mid-term benefits of physical activity, including mental health benefits. Moreover, interventions could frame physical activity as congruent with values and support value-congruent choices. Finally, the work environment could support physical activity and interruption of sedentary behaviour.
| S-EPMC8966601 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Office workers spend a high percentage of their time sitting, often in long periods of time. Research suggests that it is healthier to break these long bouts into shorter periods by being physically active. OBJECTIVE:We evaluated the effect of a context-aware activity coach, called the PEARL app, an mHealth intervention that provides activity suggestions, based on a physical activity prediction model, consisting of past and current physical activity and digital agendas. METHOD:Fifteen office workers, aged 50+, participated in an intervention study in which they used the intervention for 1 week, preceded by a 1-week baseline period. Measurements were taken before and after the intervention period. RESULTS:107 days of data from 14 participants were analysed. Total sedentary time was not reduced as a result of using the intervention (baseline vs intervention: 47.8±3.6 vs 46.8±3.0, n.s.). When using the intervention, participants reduced their total time spent in long sitting bouts (?45 min) from 19.3 to 14.4 min per hour of wear time (p<0.05). Participants indicated that the main value of the intervention lies in creating awareness about their personal sedentary behaviour pattern. CONCLUSION:An mHealth service has the potential to improve the sedentary behaviour of older office workers, especially for breaking up long sedentary periods. Focusing on total sedentary time as an outcome of an intervention, aimed at reducing sedentary behaviour, is too simplistic. One should take into account both the duration and the number of bouts when determining the effect.
| S-EPMC7253002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Occupational sedentary behaviour is an important contributor to overall sedentary risk. There is limited evidence for effective workplace interventions to reduce occupational sedentary time and increase light activity during work hours. The purpose of the study was to determine if participatory workplace interventions could reduce total sedentary time, sustained sedentary time (bouts >30 minutes), increase the frequency of breaks in sedentary time and promote light intensity activity and moderate/vigorous activity (MVPA) during work hours. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial (ANZCTR NUMBER: ACTN12612000743864) was conducted using clerical, call centre and data processing workers (n?=?62, aged 25-59 years) in 3 large government organisations in Perth, Australia. Three groups developed interventions with a participatory approach: 'Active office' (n?=?19), 'Active Workstation' and promotion of incidental office activity; 'Traditional physical activity' (n?=?14), pedometer challenge to increase activity between productive work time and 'Office ergonomics' (n?=?29), computer workstation design and breaking up computer tasks. Accelerometer (ActiGraph GT3X, 7 days) determined sedentary time, sustained sedentary time, breaks in sedentary time, light intensity activity and MVPA on work days and during work hours were measured before and following a 12 week intervention period. RESULTS: For all participants there was a significant reduction in sedentary time on work days (-1.6%, p?=?0.006) and during work hours (-1.7%, p?=?0.014) and a significant increase in number of breaks/sedentary hour on work days (0.64, p?=?0.005) and during work hours (0.72, p?=?0.015); there was a concurrent significant increase in light activity during work hours (1.5%, p?=?0.012) and MVPA on work days (0.6%, p?=?0.012). CONCLUSIONS: This study explored novel ways to modify work practices to reduce occupational sedentary behaviour. Participatory workplace interventions can reduce sedentary time, increase the frequency of breaks and improve light activity and MVPA of office workers by using a variety of interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTN12612000743864.
| S-EPMC3827087 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This feasibility study explored the contextual factors influencing office workers' adherence to an e-health intervention targeting total and prolonged sedentary time over 12 weeks. A three-arm quasi-randomized intervention included prompts at 30 or 60 min intervals delivered via a smartphone application, and a no-prompt comparison arm. Fifty-six office workers completed baseline (64% female) and 44 completed the 12 week follow-up (80% retention). Ecological momentary assessments (EMA) captured contextual data, with 82.8 ± 24.9 EMA prompt questionnaires completed weekly. Two focus groups with n = 8 Prompt 30 and 60 participants were conducted one-month post-intervention to address intervention acceptability and feasibility. Contextual findings indicate that when working on a sedentary task (i.e., reading or screen-based work) and located at an individual workstation, hourly prompts may be more acceptable and feasible for promoting a reduction in total and prolonged sedentary time compared to 30 min prompts. Interpersonal support also appears important for promoting subtle shifts in sedentary working practices. This novel study gives a real-time insight into the factors influencing adherence to e-health prompts. Findings identified unique, pragmatic considerations for delivering a workplace e-health intervention, indicating that further research is warranted to optimize the method of intervention delivery prior to evaluation of a large-scale intervention.
| S-EPMC8467510 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSedentary behaviour is any waking behaviour characterised by an energy expenditure of ≤1.5 metabolic equivalent of task while in a sitting or reclining posture. Prolonged bouts of sedentary behaviour have been associated with negative health outcomes in all age groups. We examined qualitative research investigating perceptions and experiences of sedentary behaviour and of participation in non-workplace interventions designed to reduce sedentary behaviour in adult populations.MethodA systematic search of seven databases (MEDLINE, AMED, Cochrane, PsychINFO, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and Web of Science) was conducted in September 2017. Studies were assessed for methodological quality and a thematic synthesis was conducted. Prospero database ID: CRD42017083436.ResultsThirty individual studies capturing the experiences of 918 individuals were included. Eleven studies examined experiences and/or perceptions of sedentary behaviour in older adults (typically ≥60 years); ten studies focused on sedentary behaviour in people experiencing a clinical condition, four explored influences on sedentary behaviour in adults living in socio-economically disadvantaged communities, two examined university students' experiences of sedentary behaviour, two on those of working-age adults, and one focused on cultural influences on sedentary behaviour. Three analytical themes were identified: 1) the impact of different life stages on sedentary behaviour 2) lifestyle factors influencing sedentary behaviour and 3) barriers and facilitators to changing sedentary behaviour.ConclusionsSedentary behaviour is multifaceted and influenced by a complex interaction between individual, environmental and socio-cultural factors. Micro and macro pressures are experienced at different life stages and in the context of illness; these shape individuals' beliefs and behaviour related to sedentariness. Knowledge of sedentary behaviour and the associated health consequences appears limited in adult populations, therefore there is a need for provision of accessible information about ways in which sedentary behaviour reduction can be integrated in people's daily lives. Interventions targeting a reduction in sedentary behaviour need to consider the multiple influences on sedentariness when designing and implementing interventions.
| S-EPMC6692932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has affected the physical behaviours of office workers worldwide, but studies comparing physical behaviours between countries with similar restrictions policies are rare. This study aimed to document and compare the 24-hour time-use compositions of physical behaviours among Brazilian and Swedish office workers on working and non-working days during the pandemic.MethodsPhysical behaviours were monitored over 7 days using thigh-worn accelerometers in 73 Brazilian and 202 Swedish workers. Daily time-use compositions were exhaustively described in terms of sedentary behaviour (SED) in short (< 30 min) and long (≥30 min) bouts, light physical activity (LPA), moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and time-in-bed. We examined differences between countries using MANOVA on data processed according to compositional data analysis. As Swedish workers had the possibility to do hybrid work, we conducted a set of sensitivity analyses including only data from days when Swedish workers worked from home.ResultsDuring working days, Brazilian office workers spent more time SED in short (294 min) and long (478 min) bouts and less time in LPA (156 min) and MVPA (50 min) than Swedish workers (274, 367, 256 and 85 min, respectively). Time spent in bed was similar in both groups. Similar differences between Brazilians and Swedes were observed on non-working days, while workers were, in general, less sedentary, more active and spent more time-in-bed than during working days. The MANOVA showed that Brazilians and Swedes differed significantly in behaviours during working (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.36) and non-working days (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.20). Brazilian workers spent significantly more time in SED relative to being active, less time in short relative to long bouts in SED, and more time in LPA relative to MVPA, both during workdays and non-workdays. Sensitivity analyses only on data from days when participants worked from home showed similar results.ConclusionsDuring the COVID-19 pandemic Brazilian office workers were more sedentary and less active than Swedish workers, both during working and non-working days. Whether this relates to the perception or interpretation of restrictions being different or to differences present even before the pandemic is not clear, and we encourage further research to resolve this important issue.
| S-EPMC9702952 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGlobally, many children fail to meet the World Health Organization's physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines. Schools are an ideal setting to intervene, yet despite many interventions in this setting, success when delivered under real-world conditions or at scale is limited. This systematic review aims to i) identify which implementation models are used in school-based physical activity effectiveness, dissemination, and/or implementation trials, and ii) identify factors associated with the adoption, implementation and sustainability of school-based physical activity interventions in real-world settings.MethodsThe review followed PRISMA guidelines and included a systematic search of seven databases from January 1st, 2000 to July 31st, 2018: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and ERIC. A forward citation search of included studies using Google Scholar was performed on the 21st of January 2019 including articles published until the end of 2018. Study inclusion criteria: (i) a primary outcome to increase physical activity and/or decrease sedentary behaviour among school-aged children and/or adolescents; (ii) intervention delivery within school settings, (iii) use of implementation models to plan or interpret study results; and (iv) interventions delivered under real-world conditions.Exclusion criteria(i) efficacy trials; (ii) studies applying or testing school-based physical activity policies, and; (iii) studies targeting special schools or pre-school and/or kindergarten aged children.Results27 papers comprising 17 unique interventions were included. Fourteen implementation models (e.g., RE-AIM, Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations, Precede Proceed model), were applied across 27 papers. Implementation models were mostly used to interpret results (n?=?9), for planning evaluation and interpreting results (n?=?8), for planning evaluation (n?=?6), for intervention design (n?=?4), or for a combination of designing the intervention and interpreting results (n?=?3). We identified 269 factors related to barriers (n?=?93) and facilitators (n?=?176) for the adoption (n?=?7 studies), implementation (n?=?14 studies) and sustainability (n =?7 studies) of interventions.ConclusionsImplementation model use was predominately centered on the interpretation of results and analyses, with few examples of use across all study phases as a planning tool and to understand results. This lack of implementation models applied may explain the limited success of interventions when delivered under real-world conditions or at scale.Trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD42018099836).
| S-EPMC6889569 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInterventions to increase physical activity or reduce sedentary behaviour within the workplace setting have shown mixed effects. This cluster randomised controlled trial assessed whether multi-component interventions, focusing on changes at the individual, environmental, and organisational levels, either increased physical activity or reduced sedentary behaviour, compared to a passive control group.MethodsTeams of office-workers from two companies participated in one of two interventions (iPA: targeting physical activity; or iSED: targeting sedentary behaviour), or wait-list control group (C). Exclusion criterion was very high physical activity level (MVPA ≥30 min/day in ≥10 min bouts every day). Randomisation occurred at the level of workplace cluster, and groups were randomly allocated (1:1) with stratification for company and cluster size. Personnel involved in data collection and processing were blinded to group allocation. Both interventions included five sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy counselling for 6 months. iPA included counselling focused on physical activity, access to a gym, and encouragement to exercise, and go for lunch walks. iSED included counselling on sedentary behaviour and encouragement to reduce sitting and increase engagement in standing- and walking-meetings. At baseline and the 6-month mark accelerometers were worn on the hip and thigh for 7 days. The primary outcomes were group differences in time spent in moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity (%MVPA) and in sedentary behaviour (%), analysed using Bayesian multilevel modelling for those with complete data.ResultsTwo-hundred and sixty three office workers (73% women, mean age 42 ± 9 years, education 15 ± 2 years) were randomised into 23 cluster teams (iPA n = 84, 8 clusters; iSED n = 87, 7 clusters; C n = 92, 7 clusters). No significant group differences (posterior mean ratios: 95% credible interval) were found after the intervention for %MVPA or for %Sedentary. %MVPA: iPA vs C (0·04: - 0·80-0·82); iSED vs C (0·47: - 0·41-1·32); iPA vs iSED (0·43: - 0·42-1·27). %Sedentary: iPA vs C (1·16: - 1·66-4·02); iSED vs C (- 0·44: - 3·50-2·64); iPA vs iSED (- 1·60: - 4·72-1·47).ConclusionsThe multi-component interventions focusing on either physical activity or sedentary behaviour were unsuccessful at increasing device-measured physical activity or reducing sedentary behaviour compared to a control group.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN92968402 . Registered 27/2/2018, recruitment started 15/03/2018.
| S-EPMC7466462 | biostudies-literature