Is there sufficient evidence regarding signage-based stair use interventions? A sequential meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The proliferation of studies using motivational signs to promote stair use continues unabated, with their oft-cited potential for increasing population-level physical activity participation. This study examined all stair use promotional signage studies since 1980, calculating pre-estimates and post-estimates of stair use. The aim of this project was to conduct a sequential meta-analysis to pool intervention effects, in order to determine when the evidence base was sufficient for population-wide dissemination. DESIGN: Using comparable data from 50 stair-promoting studies (57 unique estimates) we pooled data to assess the effect sizes of such interventions. RESULTS: At baseline, median stair usage across interventions was 8.1%, with an absolute median increase of 2.2% in stair use following signage-based interventions. The overall pooled OR indicated that participants were 52% more likely to use stairs after exposure to promotional signs (adjusted OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.70). Incremental (sequential) meta-analyses using z-score methods identified that sufficient evidence for stair use interventions has existed since 2006, with recent studies providing no further evidence on the effect sizes of such interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis has important policy and practice implications. Researchers continue to publish stair use interventions without connection to policymakers' needs, and few stair use interventions are implemented at a population level. Researchers should move away from repeating short-term, small-scale, stair sign interventions, to investigating their scalability, adoption and fidelity. Only such research translation efforts will provide sufficient evidence of external validity to inform their scaling up to influence population physical activity.

More standing and just as productive: Effects of a sit-stand desk intervention on call center workers' sitting, standing, and productivity at work in the Opt to Stand pilot study.

This study evaluated the effects of sit-stand desks on workers' objectively and subjectively assessed sitting, physical activity, and productivity. This quasi-experimental study involved one intervention group (n = 16) and one comparison group (n = 15). Participants were call center employees from two job-matched teams at a large telecommunications company in Sydney, Australia (45% female, 33 ± 11 years old). Intervention participants received a sit-stand desk, brief training, and daily e-mail reminders to stand up more frequently for the first 2 weeks post-installation. Control participants carried out their usual work duties at seated desks. Primary outcomes were workday sitting and physical activity assessed using ActivPAL or ActiGraph devices and self-report questionnaires. Productivity outcomes were company-specific objective metrics (e.g., hold time, talking time, absenteeism) and subjective measures. Measurements were taken at baseline, 1, 4, and 19 weeks post-installation. Intervention participants increased standing time after 1 week (+ 73 min/workday (95% CI: 22, 123)) and 4 weeks (+ 96 min/workday (95% CI: 41, 150)) post-intervention, while control group showed no changes. Between-group differences in standing time at one and 4 weeks were + 78 (95% CI: 9, 147) and + 95 min/workday (95% CI: 15, 174), respectively. Sitting time in the intervention group changed by - 64 (95% CI: - 125, - 2), - 76 (95% CI: - 142, - 11), and - 100 min/workday (95% CI: - 172, - 29) at 1, 4, and 19 weeks post-installation, respectively, while the control group showed no changes. No changes were observed in productivity outcomes from baseline to follow-up in either group. Sit-stand desks can increase standing time at work in call center workers without reducing productivity.