Reducing sitting at work: process evaluation of the SMArT Work (Stand More At Work) intervention.

BACKGROUND: Office-based workers accumulate high amounts of sitting time. Stand More At Work (SMArT Work) aimed to reduce occupational sitting time and a cluster randomised controlled trial demonstrated it was successful in achieving this aim. The purpose of this paper is to present the process evaluation of the SMArT Work intervention. METHODS: Questionnaire data were collected from intervention participants at 6 months (n = 58) and 12 months (n = 55). Questionnaires sought feedback on the different components of the intervention (education, height-adjustable desk, Darma cushion, behaviour feedback, progress chats (coaching) with research team, action planning/goal setting diary) and experiences of evaluation measures. Control participants (n = 37) were asked via questionnaire at 12-month follow-up about the impact of the study on their behaviour and any lifestyle changes made during the study. Participants from both arms were invited to focus groups to gain a deeper understanding of their experiences on completion of 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Focus group and questionnaire data showed a positive attitude towards the height-adjustable workstation with a high proportion of participants using it every day (62%). Most participants (92%) felt the education seminar increased their awareness of the health consequences of too much sitting and motivated them to change their behaviour. Receiving feedback on their sitting time and support from the research team also encouraged behaviour change. The Darma cushion and action planning/goal setting diary were seen to be less helpful for behaviour change. Benefits experienced included fewer aches and pains, improved cognitive functioning, increased productivity, more energy and positive feelings about general health. CONCLUSIONS: Key elements of the programme identified as facilitating behaviour change were the educational seminar, the height-adjustable workstation, behavioural feedback and regular contact with research staff through regular progress chats. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN10967042. Registered on 2 February 2015.

A Cost and Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Stand More AT Work (SMArT Work) Intervention.

This study conducted a cost and cost-benefit analysis of the Stand More AT (SMArT) Work workplace intervention, designed to reduce sitting time. The study was a cluster two-armed randomised controlled trial involving 37 office clusters (146 desk-based workers) in a National Health Service Trust. The intervention group received a height-adjustable workstation with supporting behaviour change strategies. The control group continued with usual practice. Self-report absenteeism, presenteeism and work productivity were assessed at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months; and organisational sickness absence records 12 months prior to, and 12 months of the intervention. Mean per employee costs associated with SMArT Work were calculated. Absenteeism, presenteeism and work productivity were estimated, and employer-recorded absence data and employee wage-banding were used to provide a human-capital-based estimate of costs to the organisation. The return-on-investment (ROI) and incremental cost-efficacy ratios (ICER) were calculated. Intervention cost was £692.40 per employee. Cost-benefit estimates show a net saving of £1770.32 (95%CI £-354.40, £3895.04) per employee as a result of productivity increase. There were no significant differences in absence data compared to the control group. SMArT Work provides supporting evidence for policy-makers and employers on the cost benefits of reducing sitting time at work.

Effectiveness of the Stand More AT (SMArT) Work intervention: cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of a multicomponent intervention (Stand More AT (SMArT) Work) designed to reduce sitting time on short (three months), medium (six months), and longer term (12 months) changes in occupational, daily, and prolonged sitting, standing, and physical activity, and physical, psychological, and work related health. DESIGN: Cluster two arm randomised controlled trial. SETTING: National Health Service trust, England. PARTICIPANTS: 37 office clusters (146 participants) of desk based workers: 19 clusters (77 participants) were randomised to the intervention and 18 (69 participants) to control. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention group received a height adjustable workstation, a brief seminar with supporting leaflet, workstation instructions with sitting and standing targets, feedback on sitting and physical activity at three time points, posters, action planning and goal setting booklet, self monitoring and prompt tool, and coaching sessions (month 1 and every three months thereafter). The control group continued with usual practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was occupational sitting time (thigh worn accelerometer). Secondary outcomes were objectively measured daily sitting, prolonged sitting (≥30 minutes), and standing time, physical activity, musculoskeletal problems, self reported work related health (job performance, job satisfaction, work engagement, occupational fatigue, sickness presenteeism, and sickness absenteeism), cognitive function, and self reported psychological measures (mood and affective states, quality of life) assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months. Data were analysed using generalised estimating equation models, accounting for clustering. RESULTS: A significant difference between groups (in favour of the intervention group) was found in occupational sitting time at 12 months (-83.28 min/workday, 95% confidence interval -116.57 to -49.98, P=0.001). Differences between groups (in favour of the intervention group compared with control) were observed for occupational sitting time at three months (-50.62 min/workday, -78.71 to -22.54, P<0.001) and six months (-64.40 min/workday, -97.31 to -31.50, P<0.001) and daily sitting time at six months (-59.32 min/day, -88.40 to -30.25, P<0.001) and 12 months (-82.39 min/day, -114.54 to -50.26, P=0.001). Group differences (in favour of the intervention group compared with control) were found for prolonged sitting time, standing time, job performance, work engagement, occupational fatigue, sickness presenteeism, daily anxiety, and quality of life. No differences were seen for sickness absenteeism. CONCLUSIONS: SMArT Work successfully reduced sitting time over the short, medium, and longer term, and positive changes were observed in work related and psychological health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10967042.

Stand More AT Work (SMArT Work): using the behaviour change wheel to develop an intervention to reduce sitting time in the workplace.

BACKGROUND: Sitting (sedentary behaviour) is widespread among desk-based office workers and a high level of sedentary behaviour is a risk factor for poor health. Reducing workplace sitting time is therefore an important prevention strategy. Interventions are more likely to be effective if they are theory and evidence-based. The Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) provides a framework for intervention development. This article describes the development of the Stand More AT Work (SMArT Work) intervention, which aims to reduce sitting time among National Health Service (NHS) office-based workers in Leicester, UK. METHODS: We followed the BCW guide and used the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Behaviour (COM-B) model to conduct focus group discussions with 39 NHS office workers. With these data we used the taxonomy of Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTv1) to identify the most appropriate strategies for facilitating behaviour change in our intervention. To identify the best method for participants to self-monitor their sitting time, a sub-group of participants (n = 31) tested a number of electronic self-monitoring devices. RESULTS: From our BCW steps and the BCT-Taxonomy we identified 10 behaviour change strategies addressing environmental (e.g. provision of height adjustable desks,), organisational (e.g. senior management support, seminar), and individual level (e.g. face-to-face coaching session) barriers. The Darma cushion scored the highest for practicality and acceptability for self-monitoring sitting. CONCLUSION: The BCW guide, COM-B model and BCT-Taxonomy can be applied successfully in the context of designing a workplace intervention for reducing sitting time through standing and moving more. The intervention was developed in collaboration with office workers (a participatory approach) to ensure relevance for them and their work situation. The effectiveness of this intervention is currently being evaluated in a randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN10967042 . Registered on 2 February 2015.

Office workers' objectively measured sedentary behavior and physical activity during and outside working hours.

OBJECTIVE: To examine objectively determined sedentary behavior and physical activity (PA) during and outside working hours in full-time office workers. METHODS: A total of 170 participants wore an ActiGraph GT1M accelerometer for 7 days. Time spent sedentary (<100 counts/min), in light-intensity PA (100 to 1951 counts/min), and moderate-to-vigorous PA (≥1952 counts/min) was calculated for workdays (including working hours and nonworking hours) and nonworkdays. RESULTS: Participants accumulated significantly higher levels of sedentary behavior (68% vs 60%) and lower levels of light-intensity activity (28% vs 36%) on workdays in comparison with nonworkdays. Up to 71% of working hours were spent sedentary. Individuals who were most sedentary at work were also more sedentary outside work. CONCLUSIONS: Those who are most sedentary at work do not compensate by increasing their PA or reducing their sedentary time outside work. Occupational interventions should address workplace and leisure-time sedentary behavior.

Seasonal variation in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep in a sample of UK adults.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA), sedentary behaviour (SB), sleep and diet have all been associated with increased risk for chronic disease. Seasonality is often overlooked as a determinant of these behaviours in adults. Currently, no study has simultaneously monitored these behaviours in UK adults to assess seasonal variation. AIM: The present study investigated whether PA, SB, sleep and diet differed over season in UK adults. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty-six adults (72% female; age = 41.7 ± 14.4 years, BMI = 24.9 ± 4.4 kg/m(2)) completed four 7-day monitoring periods; one during each season of the year. The ActiGraph GT1M was used to monitor PA and SB. Daily sleep diaries monitored time spent in bed (TIB) and total sleep time (TST). The European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC) food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) assessed diet. Repeated measures ANOVAs were used to identify seasonal differences in behaviours. RESULTS: Light-intensity PA was significantly higher in summer and spring (p < 0.001). SB and TIB were significantly higher in winter (p < 0.01). There were no seasonal variations detected in moderate-vigorous PA, TST or diet (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the concept that health promotion campaigns need to encourage year-round participation in light intensity PA, whilst limiting SB, particularly during the winter months.