Health Technology Assessment Center/Evidence-Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2023 Jul 27;20(1):92. doi: 10.1186/s12966-023-01467-5.
Active workstations have been proposed as a feasible approach for reducing occupational sedentary time. This study used a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess and compare the overall efficacy of active workstation interventions according to type and concomitant strategy for reducing work-specific sitting time in office workers.
PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from database inception until May 2022 to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of active workstations with or without concomitant strategies for reducing occupational sedentary time in office workers. The risk of bias of the RCTs included in this study was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook. An NMA with STATA 15.1 was used to construct a network diagram, league figures, and the final surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.
A total of 23 eligible studies including eight different types of interventions with 1428 office workers were included. NMA results showed that compared to a typical desk, multicomponent intervention (standardized mean difference (SMD) = - 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 2.17, - 0.82; SUCRA = 72.4%), sit-stand workstation + promotion (Reminders of rest breaks, posture variation, or incidental office activity) (SMD = - 1.49; 95%CI - 2.42, - 0.55; SUCRA = 71.0%), treadmill workstation + promotion (SMD = - 1.29; 95%CI - 2.51, - 0.07; SUCRA = 61.6%), and sit-stand workstation (SMD = - 1.10, 95%CI - 1.64, - 0.56; SUCRA = 50.2%) were effective in reducing occupational sedentary time for office workers.
Multicomponent intervention, sit-stand workstation + promotion, treadmill workstation + promotion, and sit-stand workstation appear to be effective in reducing work-specific sedentary time for office workers. Furthermore, multicomponent interventions and active workstations + promotion better reduced work-specific sedentary time than active workstation alone. However, the overall certainty of the evidence was low.
Our study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); registration number: CRD42022344432.
主动工作站被认为是减少职业久坐时间的可行方法。本研究使用网络荟萃分析(NMA)评估和比较了根据类型和伴随策略的主动工作站干预措施,以减少办公室工作人员特定工作时间的总体效果。
从数据库建立到 2022 年 5 月,检索 PubMed、Web of Science、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)数据库,以获取评估主动工作站的随机对照试验(RCT),无论是否有伴随策略,以减少办公室工作人员的职业久坐时间。根据 Cochrane 手册评估纳入本研究的 RCT 的偏倚风险。使用 STATA 15.1 进行 NMA,以构建网络图、联盟图和最终累积排序曲线(SUCRA)值下的表面。使用推荐评估、制定和评价(GRADE)方法评估证据的确定性。
共纳入 23 项符合条件的研究,包括 8 种不同类型的干预措施,共 1428 名上班族。NMA 结果表明,与标准办公桌相比,多组分干预(标准化均数差(SMD)= -1.50;95%置信区间(CI)=-2.17,-0.82;SUCRA=72.4%)、坐站工作站+促进(休息时间、姿势变化或偶然办公活动的提醒)(SMD=-1.49;95%CI=-2.42,-0.55;SUCRA=71.0%)、跑步机工作站+促进(SMD=-1.29;95%CI=-2.51,-0.07;SUCRA=61.6%)和坐站工作站(SMD=-1.10;95%CI=-1.64,-0.56;SUCRA=50.2%)可有效减少上班族的职业久坐时间。
多组分干预、坐站工作站+促进、跑步机工作站+促进和坐站工作站似乎可有效减少上班族的特定工作时间久坐。此外,多组分干预和主动工作站+促进比单独使用主动工作站更能减少特定工作时间的久坐。然而,证据的整体确定性较低。
我们的研究方案已在国际前瞻性系统评价注册库(PROSPERO)注册;注册号:CRD42022344432。