Cluster for Physical Activity and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Prev Med. 2010 Nov;51(5):352-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.08.012. Epub 2010 Aug 27.
To systematically review the effectiveness of workplace interventions for reducing sitting.
Studies published up to April 2009 were identified by literature searches in multiple databases. Studies were included if they were interventions to increase energy expenditure (increase physical activity or decrease sitting); were conducted in a workplace setting; and specifically measured sitting as a primary or secondary outcome. Two independent reviewers assessed methodological quality of the included studies, and data on study design, sample, measures of sitting, intervention and results were extracted.
Six studies met the inclusion criteria (five randomised trials and one pre-post study). The primary aim of all six was to increase physical activity; all had reducing sitting as a secondary aim. All used self-report measures of sitting; one specifically assessed occupational sitting time; the others used measures of general sitting. No studies showed that sitting decreased significantly in the intervention group, compared with a control or comparison group.
Currently, there is a dearth of evidence on the effectiveness of workplace interventions for reducing sitting. In light of the growing body of evidence that prolonged sitting is negatively associated with health, this highlights a gap in the scientific literature that needs to be addressed.
系统回顾减少久坐的工作场所干预措施的有效性。
通过在多个数据库中进行文献检索，确定截至 2009 年 4 月发表的研究。如果研究是为了增加能量消耗（增加体力活动或减少久坐）而进行的；在工作场所进行；并特别将久坐作为主要或次要结果进行测量，则将其纳入。两位独立的审查员评估了纳入研究的方法学质量，并提取了研究设计、样本、久坐测量、干预措施和结果的数据。
符合纳入标准的有 6 项研究（5 项随机试验和 1 项前后研究）。所有六项研究的主要目的都是增加身体活动；都将减少久坐作为次要目标。所有研究均使用自我报告的久坐措施；有一项专门评估职业性久坐时间；其他研究则使用一般久坐时间的测量方法。与对照组或比较组相比，没有研究表明干预组的久坐时间显著减少。
目前，关于减少久坐的工作场所干预措施的有效性的证据很少。鉴于越来越多的证据表明长时间久坐与健康状况呈负相关，这突显了科学文献中的一个空白，需要加以解决。
