These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A multicomponent intervention to reduce daily sitting time in office workers: the SMART Work & Life three-arm cluster RCT.
    Author: Edwardson CL, Maylor BD, Biddle SJ, Clemes SA, Cox E, Davies MJ, Dunstan DW, Eborall H, Granat MH, Gray LJ, Hadjiconstantinou M, Healy GN, Jaicim NB, Lawton S, Mandalia P, Munir F, Richardson G, Walker S, Yates T, Clarke-Cornwell AM.
    Journal: Public Health Res (Southampt); 2023 Sep; 11(6):1-229. PubMed ID: 37786938.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Office workers spend 70-85% of their time at work sitting. High levels of sitting have been linked to poor physiological and psychological health. Evidence shows the need for fully powered randomised controlled trials, with long-term follow-up, to test the effectiveness of interventions to reduce sitting time. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the SMART Work & Life intervention, delivered with and without a height-adjustable workstation, compared with usual practice at 12-month follow-up. DESIGN: A three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Councils in England. PARTICIPANTS: Office workers. INTERVENTION: SMART Work & Life is a multicomponent intervention that includes behaviour change strategies, delivered by workplace champions. Clusters were randomised to (1) the SMART Work & Life intervention, (2) the SMART Work & Life intervention with a height-adjustable workstation (i.e. SMART Work & Life plus desk) or (3) a control group (i.e. usual practice). Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 12 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was device-assessed daily sitting time compared with usual practice at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included sitting, standing, stepping time, physical activity, adiposity, blood pressure, biochemical measures, musculoskeletal issues, psychosocial variables, work-related health, diet and sleep. Cost-effectiveness and process evaluation data were collected. RESULTS: A total of 78 clusters (756 participants) were randomised [control, 26 clusters (n = 267); SMART Work & Life only, 27 clusters (n = 249); SMART Work & Life plus desk, 25 clusters (n = 240)]. At 12 months, significant differences between groups were found in daily sitting time, with participants in the SMART Work & Life-only and SMART Work & Life plus desk arms sitting 22.2 minutes per day (97.5% confidence interval -38.8 to -5.7 minutes/day; p = 0.003) and 63.7 minutes per day (97.5% confidence interval -80.0 to -47.4 minutes/day; p < 0.001), respectively, less than the control group. Participants in the SMART Work & Life plus desk arm sat 41.7 minutes per day (95% confidence interval -56.3 to -27.0 minutes/day; p < 0.001) less than participants in the SMART Work & Life-only arm. Sitting time was largely replaced by standing time, and changes in daily behaviour were driven by changes during work hours on workdays. Behaviour changes observed at 12 months were similar to 3 months. At 12 months, small improvements were seen for stress, well-being and vigour in both intervention groups, and for pain in the lower extremity and social norms in the SMART Work & Life plus desk group. Results from the process evaluation supported these findings, with participants reporting feeling more energised, alert, focused and productive. The process evaluation also showed that participants viewed the intervention positively; however, the extent of engagement varied across clusters. The average cost of SMART Work & Life only and SMART Work & Life plus desk was £80.59 and £228.31 per participant, respectively. Within trial, SMART Work & Life only had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,091 per quality-adjusted life-year, with SMART Work & Life plus desk being dominated. Over a lifetime, SMART Work & Life only and SMART Work & Life plus desk had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £4985 and £13,378 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. LIMITATIONS: The study was carried out in one sector, limiting generalisability. CONCLUSIONS: The SMART Work & Life intervention, provided with and without a height-adjustable workstation, was successful in changing sitting time. FUTURE WORK: There is a need for longer-term follow-up, as well as follow-up within different organisations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11618007. Office workers spend a large proportion of their day sitting. High levels of sitting have been linked to diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and some cancers. The SMART Work & Life intervention is designed to reduce office workers’ sitting time inside and outside work. The SMART Work & Life intervention involves organisational, environmental, group and individual strategies to encourage a reduction in sitting time and was designed to be delivered with and without a height-adjustable workstation (which allows the user to switch between sitting and standing while working). To test whether or not the SMART Work & Life intervention worked, we recruited 756 office workers from councils in Leicester/Leicestershire, Greater Manchester and Liverpool, UK. Participants were from 78 office groups. One-third of the participants received the intervention, one-third received the intervention with a height-adjustable workstation and one-third were a control group (and carried on as usual). Workplace champions in each office group were given training and resources to deliver the intervention. Data were collected at the start of the study, with follow-up measurements at 3 and 12 months. We measured sitting time using a small device worn on the thigh and collected data on weight, body fat, blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol levels. We asked participants about their health and work and spoke to participants to find out what they thought of the intervention. Our results showed that participants who received the intervention without workstation sat for 22 minutes less per day, and participants who received the intervention with workstation sat for 64 minutes less per day, than participants in the control group. Levels of stress, well-being, vigour (i.e. personal and emotional energy and cognitive liveliness) and pain in the lower extremity appeared to improve in the intervention groups. Participants viewed the intervention positively and reported several benefits, such as feeling more energised, alert, focused and productive; however, the extent to which participants engaged with the intervention varied across groups.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]