Impact and process evaluation of a co-designed ‘Move More, Sit Less’ intervention in a public sector workplace

Abstract

Background: High levels of sitting are associated with increased risk of adverse health outcomes, including chronic disease. Extensive sitting at work is common, hence organisations should provide options to employees to reduce prolonged sitting. OBJECTIVE:To assess the efficacy and acceptability of a co-designed intervention to increase standing and reduce sitting in a public-sector office. METHODS:Forty-six adults participated in the quasi-experimental study (30 intervention; 16 control).The intervention involved providing sit-stand desks, prompts, workshops, and information emails to assist behavior change. Participants wore a thigh-mounted Actigraph GT3X+ for five working days and responded to an online questionnaire at baseline (BL), 6 (T1) and 13 weeks (T2) post intervention. RESULTS:Inclinometer-measured proportion of time standing increased in the intervention group from 14% (baseline) to 28% (T1) and 27% (T2) (67 minutes more standing over an 8-hour workday). Intervention participants reduced sitting time from 79% (BL) to 63% (T1 and T2), (80 minutes less sitting over an 8-hour workday). The control group showed no changes. The program was highly recommended (94%), and perceived to support behavior change (81%). CONCLUSIONS:This Move More, Sit Less intervention appears to be efficacious and acceptable. Future interventions should be co-designed to ensure culturally appropriate components and higher acceptability.

Understanding the Office: Using Ecological Momentary Assessment to Measure Activities, Posture, Social Interactions, Mood, and Work Performance at the Workplace

“…The proportion of instances spent sitting, standing, or walking are similar to what other studies have found in office environments using various kinds of measurements, ranging from self-reported estimates [13] to objective measures using inclinometers [14]. This suggests that the EMA method is a valid method to use for estimates of sitting, standing, and walking; however, a well-defined validation study is needed to establish the exact level of validity.…”

The relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations: an integrative review

“… 44 45 53 54 57 62 68 The presence of senior leadership might contribute to better involvement of end-users 53 as well as participants that are already familiar with the intervention to support the implementation. 62 In contrast, resistance of senior leaders can hinder the implementation. 55 …”

“…According to the so-called 7Ps Framework to identify stakeholders in patient-centred outcomes research, the following stakeholder groups are of interest: patients and the public, providers, purchasers, payers, policy-makers, product makers and principal investigators 61. Most studies involved a combination of patients and public (N=23)40–46 48–55 57–60 62–65 together with providers (N=17)42 44 47–49 51–58 60 63 66 67 in the living lab approach. The combination of patients and public together with providers was used in N=10 of the included studies.…”

“…Notably, only one study involved policy-makers and none of the included studies involved purchasers, payers or product makers 68. The most common living lab key components identified were cocreation (N=25)40–42 44–51 53 55–60 62–68 and user-centric (N=10) 40 41 43 46 48 52 54 60 66 67. A combination of the living lab components cocreation and user-centric were mentioned in N=5 studies 40 46 48 60 67.…”

“…68 The most common living lab key components identified were cocreation (N=25) 40-42 44-51 53 55-60 62-68 and user-centric (N=10). 40 [62][63][64][65][66][67][68] The most mentioned combination was development and implementation phase (N=5) 49 57-60 and development and evaluation phase (N=5). 42 44 48 49 55 In the studies using cocreation in their living lab approach, studies reported on different stages for their cocreation process (n=17).…”