Dataset Information

Protocol for a pilot trial to assess the feasibility of the Move More @ Work intervention to encourage employees to take the opportunity to move (be physically active) after every 30 min of sitting.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prolonged sitting increases the risk of cardio-metabolic disease. Office-based employees are particularly susceptible to high rates of this sedentary behaviour during work hours. Laboratory studies indicate that regularly interrupting periods of prolonged sitting with short bouts (2 min) of physical activity can improve markers of cardio-metabolic health. This method of interrupting sitting time is yet to be tested in an occupational setting and may provide an alternative to providing sit-to-stand desks. Drawing on the Behaviour Change Wheel and evidence on the barriers and motivators to performing regular activity breaks, the Move More @ Work intervention was developed. The objectives of this pilot study are to examine the feasibility, and preliminary outcomes, of this intervention designed to encourage participants to perform 1-2 min of activity after every 30 min of continuous sitting throughout the work day. The study will inform if progress to a full effectiveness trial is warranted.

Methods

An interrupted time series design consisting of a 4-week baseline (control period), a 12-week intervention, and a 12-week follow-up will be utilised. At least 57 university employees who self-report spending > 5 h per day sitting at work on at least 3 days per week will be recruited to participate. The intervention consists of (1) a structured consultation with a Move More @ Work coach, containing a number of behaviour change techniques to create an individualised plan of how to incorporate the activity breaks into the working day, and (2) strategies to create a supportive workplace culture for performing the activity breaks. Feasibility will be assessed by recruitment and retention rates, and acceptability of the intervention. Pilot outcomes are the number of regular activity breaks taken during the workday, cardio-metabolic risk score and self-reported health, and work-related productivity outcomes.

Discussion

If the Move More @ Work intervention is shown to be feasible, acceptable, and shows evidence of effectiveness, this will provide justification for the progression to a full scale evaluation of the intervention. In the longer-term, this intervention may provide an alternative means of improving health outcomes through interrupting sedentary time than that offered by current sedentary behaviour interventions.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12620000354987 . Registered on 12 March 2020.

SUBMITTER: Hargreaves EA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8422613 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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

Project description:PURPOSE:To provide empirically-supported thresholds for step-based intensity (i.e., peak 30-min cadence; average of the top 30 steps/min in a day) and steps/day in relation to cardiometabolic health outcomes. METHODS:Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was applied to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2005-2006 accelerometer-derived step data to determine steps/day and peak 30-min cadence as risk screening values (i.e., thresholds) for fasting glucose, body mass index, waist circumference, high blood pressure, triglycerides, and HDL cholesterol. Thresholds for peak 30-min cadence and steps/day were derived that, when exceeded, classify the absence of each cardiometabolic risk factor. Additionally, logistic regression models that included the influence of age and smoking were developed using the sample weights, primary sampling units (PSUs), and stratification variables provided by the NHANES survey. Finally, a decision tree analysis was performed to delineate criteria for at-risk versus healthy populations using cadence bands. RESULTS:Peak 30-min cadence thresholds across cardiometabolic outcomes ranged from 66-72 steps/min. Steps/day thresholds ranged from 4325-6192 steps/day. Higher thresholds were observed in men compared to women. In men, higher steps/day thresholds were observed in age ranges of 30-39, while in women, higher thresholds were observed in the age-range 50-59 years. Decision trees for classifying being at low risk for metabolic syndrome contained one risk-free leaf at higher cadence bands, specifically for any time accumulated at ≥120 steps/min. CONCLUSIONS:Minimum thresholds representing absence of cardiometabolic risk range from 4325-6192 steps/day and 66-72 steps/min for peak 30-min cadence. Any time accumulated at ≥120 steps/min was associated with an absence of cardiometabolic risk. Although based on cross-sectional data, these thresholds represent potentially important and clinically interpretable daily physical activity goals.