Background Sedentary time is associated with chronic disease and premature mortality. We tested a multilevel workplace intervention with and without sit-stand workstations to reduce sedentary time and lower cardiometabolic risk. Methods Stand and Move at Work was a group (cluster) randomized trial conducted between January 2016 and December 2017 among full-time employees; ≥18 years; and in academic, industry/healthcare, and government worksites in Phoenix, Arizona and Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. Eligible worksites were randomized to (a) MOVE+, a multilevel intervention targeting reduction in sedentary time and increases in light physical activity (LPA); or (b) STAND+, the MOVE+ intervention along with sit-stand workstations to allow employees to sit or stand while working. The primary endpoints were objectively-measured workplace sitting and LPA at 12 months. The secondary endpoint was a clustered cardiometabolic risk score (blood pressure, glucose, insulin, triglycerides, and HDL-cholesterol) at 12 months. Results Worksites (N = 24; academic [n = 8], industry/healthcare [n = 8], and government [n = 8] sectors) and employees (N = 630; 27 ± 8 per worksite; 45 ± 11 years of age, 74% female) were enrolled. All worksites were retained and 487 participants completed the intervention and provided data for the primary endpoint. The adjusted between arm difference in sitting at 12 months was − 59.2 (CI: − 74.6,-43.8) min per 8 h workday, favoring STAND+, and in LPA at 12 months was + 2.2 (− 0.9,5.4) min per 8 h workday. Change in the clustered metabolic risk score was small and not statistically significant, but favored STAND+. In an exploratory subgroup of 95 participants with prediabetes or diabetes, the effect sizes were larger and clinically meaningful, all favoring STAND+, including blood glucose, triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, LDL-cholesterol, body weight, and body fat. Conclusions Multilevel workplace interventions that include the use of sit-stand workstations are effective for large reductions in sitting time over 12 months. Among those with prediabetes or diabetes, clinical improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors and body weight may be realized. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02566317. Registered 2 October 2015, first participant enrolled 11 January 2016.

Introduction: Desk-based office workers are at occupational risk for poor health outcomes from excessive time spent sitting. Sit-stand workstations are used to mitigate sitting, but lack of workstation usage has been observed. Point-of-choice (PoC) prompts offer a complementary strategy for office workers to break up their sitting time.Study purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the preliminary efficacy, preference, and acceptability of a theory-driven (i.e., 40 unique prompts encompassing social cognitive theory; TD-PoC) and an atheoretical basic reminder PoC prompt intervention (R-PoC) on reducing sedentary behavior in office workers with self-reported low sit-stand workstation usage (≤4 h per day).Methods: In a cross-over design, participants (N = 19, 78.9% female, 39.4 ± 10.7 years of age) completed a 5-days no-prompt control condition followed by a random and counterbalanced assignment to one of the TD-PoC and R-PoC active conditions with a 1-week washout period between. Preliminary efficacy was assessed during work hours with the activPAL micro accelerometer. Preference was assessed prior to each active condition and acceptability was assessed following each active condition via questionnaire.Results: The R-PoC prompt condition significantly decreased sitting time (b[se] = −49.0 [20.8], p = 0.03) and increased standing time (b[se] = 49.8 [19.7], p = 0.02) and displayed a significant increase in sit-stand transitions (b[se] = 2.3 [1.1], p = 0.04), relative to no-prompt control. Both the R-PoC and TD-PoC prompt conditions significantly decreased time spent in prolonged sitting bouts at b[se] = −68.1 [27.8], (p = 0.02), (b[se] = −76.7 [27.1], p = 0.008) relative to no-prompt control. Overall, the TD-PoC prompt condition displayed higher preference and acceptability ratings; however, these differences were not significant (p's > 0.05).Conclusion: While the R-PoC prompt condition was slightly more efficacious than the TD-PoC prompt condition, the TD-PoC prompt condition was rated with higher preference and acceptability scores. Large variations between participants in preference, acceptability, and intervention feedback may indicate need for tailored messaging which may facilitate sustained use in the long-term.

A high proportion of worksites and employees approached to participate in a sedentary behavior reduction intervention engaged in the study. Interventions that provide flexible enrollment, graded participant engagement options, and adopt a participant-centered approach may facilitate workplace intervention success.

No abstract

PURPOSE: We evaluated the validity and sensitivity-to-change of a workplace questionnaire to assess sedentary behavior (SB) during and outside of work. METHODS: Participants wore an activPAL and completed a SB questionnaire at two timepoints (baseline and 3-month follow-up). Ecological momentary assessments (EMA) were used to assess workplace location (at desk vs. away from desk). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), mean difference, root of mean square error (RMSE), kappa agreement, and Bland-Altman plots assessed validity. Sensitivity-to-change following 3 months of intervention was assessed using the standardized effect size (SES). RESULTS: Data from 546 participants (age= 45.1±16.4 years, 24.9% males, 72.7% white) were analyzed. ICC ranged from 0.08 to 0.23. SB was overestimated by, d (95% CI), 47.9(39.2, 56.6) min/day during workhours but underestimated for both non-workhours and non-workdays by −38.3(−47.4, 29.1) and −106.7(124.0, −89.5) min/day, respectively. Participants slightly underestimated SB by −3.4(−12.6, 5.7)% when at their desk but overestimated SB by 2.8(−2.4, 8.0)% when not at their desk. The questionnaire demonstrated similar SES (> 0.6) to the activPAL for sedentary and standing time. CONCLUSION: Agreement between the questionnaire and activPAL was on par with other selfreport measures. The questionnaire yielded valid estimates of at/away from desk SB and was sensitive to change.