Human Performance and Exercise Science Lab, Department of Health Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, United States.
Center for Cognitive and Brain Health, College of Science, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, United States.
J Med Internet Res. 2023 May 16;25:e43018. doi: 10.2196/43018.
Sit-to-stand and treadmill desks may help sedentary office workers meet the physical activity guideline to "move more and sit less," but little is known about their long-term impact on altering the accumulation patterns of physical behaviors.
This study explores the impact of sit-to-stand and treadmill desks on physical behavior accumulation patterns during a 12-month multicomponent intervention with an intent-to-treat design in overweight and obese seated office workers.
In total, 66 office workers were cluster randomized into a seated desk control (n=21, 32%; 8 clusters), sit-to-stand desk (n=23, 35%; 9 clusters), or treadmill desk (n=22, 33%; 7 clusters) group. Participants wore an activPAL (PAL Technologies Ltd) accelerometer for 7 days at baseline, 3-month follow-up (M3), 6-month follow-up (M6), and 12-month follow-up (M12) and received periodic feedback on their physical behaviors. Analyses of physical behavior patterns included total day and workday number of sedentary, standing, and stepping bouts categorized into durations ranging from 1 to 60 and >60 minutes and usual sedentary, standing, and stepping bout durations. Intervention trends were analyzed using random-intercept mixed linear models accounting for repeated measures and clustering effects.
The treadmill desk group favored prolonged sedentary bouts (>60 min), whereas the sit-to-stand desk group accrued more short-duration sedentary bouts (<20 min). Therefore, compared with controls, sit-to-stand desk users had shorter usual sedentary bout durations short-term (total day ΔM3: -10.1 min/bout, 95% CI -17.9 to -2.2; P=.01; workday ΔM3: -20.3 min/bout, 95% CI -37.7 to -2.9; P=.02), whereas treadmill desk users had longer usual sedentary bout durations long-term (total day ΔM12: 9.0 min/bout, 95% CI 1.6-16.4; P=.02). The treadmill desk group favored prolonged standing bouts (30-60 min and >60 min), whereas the sit-to-stand desk group accrued more short-duration standing bouts (<20 min). As such, relative to controls, treadmill desk users had longer usual standing bout durations short-term (total day ΔM3: 6.9 min/bout, 95% CI 2.5-11.4; P=.002; workday ΔM3: 8.9 min/bout, 95% CI 2.1-15.7; P=.01) and sustained this long-term (total day ΔM12: 4.5 min/bout, 95% CI 0.7-8.4; P=.02; workday ΔM12: 5.8 min/bout, 95% CI 0.9-10.6; P=.02), whereas sit-to-stand desk users showed this trend only in the long-term (total day ΔM12: 4.2 min/bout, 95% CI 0.1-8.3; P=.046). The treadmill desk group accumulated more stepping bouts across various bins of duration (5-50 min), primarily at M3. Thus, treadmill desk users had longer usual stepping bout durations in the short-term compared with controls (workday ΔM3: 4.8 min/bout, 95% CI 1.3-8.3; P=.007) and in the short- and long-term compared with sit-to-stand desk users (workday ΔM3: 4.7 min/bout, 95% CI 1.6-7.8; P=.003; workday ΔM12: 3.0 min/bout, 95% CI 0.1-5.9; P=.04).
Sit-to-stand desks exerted potentially more favorable physical behavior accumulation patterns than treadmill desks. Future active workstation trials should consider strategies to promote more frequent long-term movement bouts and dissuade prolonged static postural fixity.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02376504; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02376504.
坐站交替式办公桌和跑步机办公桌可能有助于久坐的办公室工作人员达到“多活动、少坐立”的身体活动指南要求，但对于它们对改变身体行为积累模式的长期影响知之甚少。
本研究采用意向治疗设计，在超重和肥胖的久坐办公室工作人员中进行为期 12 个月的多组分干预，探讨坐站交替式办公桌和跑步机办公桌对身体行为积累模式的影响。
共 66 名办公室工作人员被聚类随机分为坐式办公桌对照组（n=21，32%；8 个聚类）、坐站交替式办公桌组（n=23，35%；9 个聚类）或跑步机办公桌组（n=22，33%；7 个聚类）。参与者在基线、3 个月随访（M3）、6 个月随访（M6）和 12 个月随访（M12）时佩戴 activPAL（PAL Technologies Ltd）加速度计 7 天，并定期收到有关其身体行为的反馈。身体行为模式分析包括总工作日和工作日内的久坐、站立和跨步次数，分为 1-60 分钟和>60 分钟的时间区间，以及通常的久坐、站立和跨步时间区间。使用随机截距混合线性模型分析干预趋势，该模型考虑了重复测量和聚类效应。
跑步机办公桌组偏好长时间的久坐（>60 分钟），而坐站交替式办公桌组则积累了更多的短时间久坐（<20 分钟）。因此，与对照组相比，坐站交替式办公桌使用者的久坐时间更短（总工作日 M3：-10.1 分钟/段，95%CI-17.9 至-2.2；P=.01；工作日 M3：-20.3 分钟/段，95%CI-37.7 至-2.9；P=.02），而跑步机办公桌使用者的久坐时间更长（总工作日 M12：9.0 分钟/段，95%CI1.6-16.4；P=.02）。跑步机办公桌组偏好长时间的站立（30-60 分钟和>60 分钟），而坐站交替式办公桌组则积累了更多的短时间站立（<20 分钟）。因此，与对照组相比，跑步机办公桌使用者的站立时间更长（总工作日 M3：6.9 分钟/段，95%CI2.5-11.4；P=.002；工作日 M3：8.9 分钟/段，95%CI2.1-15.7；P=.01），且这种趋势持续存在（总工作日 M12：4.5 分钟/段，95%CI0.7-8.4；P=.02；工作日 M12：5.8 分钟/段，95%CI0.9-10.6；P=.02），而坐站交替式办公桌使用者仅在长期观察到这种趋势（总工作日 M12：4.2 分钟/段，95%CI0.1-8.3；P=.046）。跑步机办公桌组在各个时间区间（5-50 分钟）积累了更多的跨步次数，主要在 M3 时。因此，与对照组相比，跑步机办公桌使用者的日常跨步时间更长（工作日 M3：4.8 分钟/段，95%CI1.3-8.3；P=.007），且在短期和长期观察中都更长（工作日 M3：4.7 分钟/段，95%CI1.6-7.8；P=.003；工作日 M12：3.0 分钟/段，95%CI0.1-5.9；P=.04），与坐站交替式办公桌使用者相比。
坐站交替式办公桌对身体行为积累模式的影响可能比跑步机办公桌更有利。未来的主动工作站试验应考虑促进更频繁的长期运动和减少长时间的静态姿势固定。
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02376504；https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02376504。
