Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, the Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, the Netherlands.
Appl Ergon. 2020 Apr;84:103027. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2019.103027. Epub 2020 Jan 10.
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.
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.
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.
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.
久坐行为在上班族中非常普遍，与多种健康风险相关。本研究旨在评估动态工作干预，通过与对照组相比，在 8 个月随访时评估其对总坐姿时间的影响。
这是一项两臂实用型整群随机对照试验，纳入了来自一家大型荷兰保险公司 14 个不同部门的 244 名上班族。动态工作干预是一种真实的工作场所干预，包括环境成分（即坐站工作站）、组织成分（即小组会议）和个人成分（如活动/坐姿追踪器）。结果在基线、4 个月随访和 8 个月随访时进行评估。主要结局是 8 个月随访时使用 activPAL 活动监测器评估的每日总坐姿时间。次要结局包括其他总活动和职业活动行为结局、健康相关结局和工作相关结局。数据分析采用线性和逻辑混合模型进行。
8 个月随访时，干预组和对照组的总坐姿时间没有差异。次要结局在 4 个月和 8 个月随访时也没有差异，除了职业步数，4 个月随访时有统计学意义（但 8 个月随访时没有），即 8 小时工作日增加 913 步（95%CI=381-1445）。
本研究评估了减少坐姿时间的真实工作场所干预的有效性，结果显示效果很小或没有。这可能是由于干预的强度相对较低，即仅将 25%的坐姿工作站替换为坐站工作站。未来的研究应集中在评估更密集的真实工作场所干预，这些干预在日常实践中仍然可行。临床试验。
GOV，注册号：NCT03115645。
