Impact of Activity-Based Working and Height-Adjustable Desks on Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, and Space Utilization among Office Workers: A Natural Experiment

Abstract

It has been reported that office environment is an important determinant of physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB) in office workers. However, the effect of changes in office environment (office renovation) is unclear. The purpose of this study was to examine PA, SB, and space utilization changes among office workers in response to office renovation. This study was a natural experiment at three offices of a single company in Tokyo, Japan. The participants were, 13 workers from one office in the renovation group (mean age: 37.9 ± 10.8 years, percentage of females: 23.1%) and 29 from two offices in the control group (mean age: 42.3 ± 11.2 years, percentage of females: 31.0%). In the renovation, introduction of activity-based working (ABW) and installation of height-adjustable desks (HAD) were adopted. The ABW office was designed to provide various shared workstations, enabling the workers to choose workstations depending on their task or mood. Accelerometer measurement and object detection method using artificial intelligence (AI) technology for video images were used to assess behavior and space utilization before and after the renovation. Two weeks after the renovation, significant improvements in SB (pre-to post-renovation improvements: 346.8 ± 28.6 to 321.2 ± 17.8 min/working-hours) and PA (total PA: 173.2 ± 28.6 to 198.8 ± 17.8 min/working-hours; and light-intensity PA: 130.4 ± 27.1 to 150.7 ± 31.0 min/working-hours) were observed. In addition, the results of the object detection analysis showed that the central aisle of the office and shared HAD workstations near the entrance or window were utilized more frequently than the other spaces. This study suggested that office renovation could improve SB and PA immediately after the renovation. Moreover, utilized spaces and HAD workstations could play an important role to enhance employees' activity in an ABW office.

Associations of working from home with occupational physical activity and sedentary behavior under the COVID-19 pandemic

“…The use of active workstations is a powerful intervention 33 ; hence, the use of height‐adjustable desks (sit‐stand workstations) would be a useful interventional strategy for telecommuting workers to reduce SB and interrupt prolonged SB bouts, not only at their offices but also at home. In addition, a natural experimental study showed that office renovation by the introduction of activity‐based working and installation of height‐adjustable desks has a favorable effect on increasing PA as well as decreasing SB 34 . In addition to the above environmental interventions, other interventions for SB at the individual, social, and organizational levels have been suggested from the viewpoint of the ecological model 35 .…”

Enhancing motivation and psychological wellbeing in the workplace through conscious physical activity: Suggestions from a qualitative study examining workers' experience

“…Movement-based breaks increase the workers' perception of their wellbeing as long as they do not significantly cut into productive work time (Haapakangas et al, 2018 ). Exercise during the usual daily workflow makes the worksite more proactive, which enhances workers' self-awareness and physical efficiency (Tsai and Wang, 2016 ; Jindo et al, 2019 ). Again, the companies benefit more from promoting employees' physical activity: productivity, work performance, and workers' mood all improve (Grimani et al, 2019 ), and medical costs and costs from absenteeism become considerably lower (Baicker et al, 2010 ).…”

Impact of structural-level environmental interventions on physical activity: a systematic review

“…The outcome of PA was presented in the 26 studies (Schultz et al 2017;Dill et al 2014;Auchincloss et al 2019;McCormack et al 2016;Ogilvie et al 2016;Simões et al 2017;Lee et al 2017;Cohen et al 2012Cohen et al , 2019Jindo et al 2020;Cranney et al 2016;Brittin et al 2017;Andersen et al 2017;Zhu et al 2018;Sun et al 2020;Mölenberg et al 2019a;Fitzhugh et al 2010;Veitch et al 2012;Aittasalo et al 2019;Hooper et al 2018;Quigg et al 2012;Giles-Corti et al 2013;McGavock et al 2019;Demant Klinker et al 2015;Ward Thompson et al 2013;Jancey et al 2016) shown in Table 3 in which the effectiveness of the programs was variable. The level of PA was greater in some structural-level environmental modifications than in others while no difference between intervention and control groups were observed.…”

“…Seventeen studies (Schultz et al 2017;Dill et al 2014;McCormack et al 2016;Ogilvie et al 2016;Simões et al 2017;Cohen et al 2012;Jindo et al 2020;Brittin et al 2017;Andersen et al 2017;Mölenberg et al 2019a;Veitch et al 2012;Aittasalo et al 2019;Hooper et al 2018;McGavock et al 2019;Demant Klinker et al 2015;Ward Thompson et al 2013;Jancey et al 2016) reported an increase in the PA level post-structural modification. For example, an increase in total activity time, varying between 10 and 30 min, a 6-28% increase and an increase of between 38 and 369 users participating in the activity were found between the pre-and post-structural modifications.…”

“…Fourth of the 5 studies found an increase in metabolic work (Ogilvie et al 2016;Cohen et al 2012Cohen et al , 2019Brittin et al 2017) and 1 found a decrease (Schultz et al 2017) as shown in Table 3. The time spent sitting versus active time was reported in 4 studies, with 3 in the workplace (Jindo et al 2020;Zhu et al 2018;Jancey et al 2016) and 1 in a school (Brittin et al 2017) and all of the studies found not only an increase in PA but less time spent sitting in both the work and school populations. Furthermore, in the workplace studies, as shown in Table 4, there was a reduction in sitting time and of seated work, with an increase in both standing work and light PA.…”