Table 1 Study characteristics
Author (reference) | Study design | Setting | Participants | Intervention (description, complex or simple, duration, theoretical support) | Control group | Objective or subjective measure of sitting |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alkhajah et al. 2012 [29] | Non-randomised | Academic institution - health research, Australia | Total: n = 32 Intervention group n = 18 Control group n = 14 | Sit-stand desk plus verbal and written instructions on best use (intervention duration: 3 months) - simple intervention Theory use not explicitly mentioned | Control group received no modifications | Objective (activPAL) |
Chau et al. 2014 [40] Associated paper (qualitative study): Chau et al. 2014 [62] | Crossover RCT (with qualitative study embedded) | Non-government health agency, Australia | Total: n = 42 | Sit-stand desk plus training on how to use and ergonomic assessment (intervention duration: 4 weeks) - simple intervention Theory use not explicitly mentioned | Control group received no modifications (remained on waitlist to receive intervention at the end of the study) | Objective (activPAL) |
Chau et al. 2016 [51] | Non-randomised | Call centre, Australia | Total: n = 31 Intervention group n = 16 Control group n = 15 | Sit-stand desk, brief training on use and daily email reminders to stand-up more during the first 2 weeks after installation (intervention duration: 19 weeks) - complex intervention Theory use not explicitly mentioned | Control group received no modifications | Objective (activPAL and ActiGraph) but low participant adherence so only presented subjective data (self-report) in paper (objective data was presented as supplemental information) |
De Cocker et al. 2016 [53] Associated paper: (intervention development) De Cocker et al. 2015 [60] | RCT (2 interventions, one control) | University and environment agency, Belgium | Total: n = 213 Tailored group n = 78 Generic group n = 84 Control group n = 51 | Web-based intervention - personalised computer-tailored advice with tips on how to reduce and interrupt sitting time (intervention duration not documented) - complex intervention Also generic intervention - non-personalised info on the importance of reducing/interrupting sitting time and tips on how to achieve this Theory used - theory of planned behaviour with the concept of goal-setting integrated (goal-setting and action plans operate within Self-Regulation Theory), also concepts of Self-Determination Theory | Control group received no modifications (remained on waitlist to receive intervention at the end of the study) | Objective (activPAL) but only a sub-sample (57%) used these, the rest were subjective (self-report) |
Dutta et al. 2014 [54] Associated paper (qualitative study): Dutta et al. 2015 [63] | Crossover RCT with qualitative study embedded | Private sector organisation, USA | Total: n = 29 (n = 17 received intervention during period 1; n = 12 during period 2) | Sit-stand desks, advice on usage, email reminders to use desks (intervention duration: 4 weeks) - complex intervention Theory use not explicitly mentioned | Control group received no modifications | Objective (accelerometer - Modular Signal Recorder) |
Evans et al. 2012 [55] | RCT | University, Scotland | Total: n = 30 Education only group n = 15 Point-of-choice prompts group n = 15 | Education only - education session on adverse health effects of prolonged sitting Point-of-choice prompts - as above plus prompting software reminding them to stand every 30 mins - complex intervention (intervention duration: 5 days) Theory use not explicitly mentioned | Controls were the education only group | Objective (activPAL) |
Gao et al. 2016 [56] | Non-randomised | University, possibly in Finland but not stated | Total: n = 92 | Sit-stand desks (intervention duration: 6 months) - simple intervention but intervention participants also moved into a new building, so unclear if this contributed to changes seen Theory use not explicitly mentioned | Control group received no modifications | Subjective (self-report) |
Gordon 2013 [57] | RCT | University, USA | Total: n = 24 Intervention group n = 13 Control group n = 11 | Emails with psychosocial info and other available resources relating to decreasing SB at work (educational info, goal-setting, self-regulation, facilitation, reciprocal determinism (intervention duration: 10 weeks) - complex intervention All participants received walking workstation (intervention and control) Theory used - social cognitive theory | Control group received general health education - biweekly emails concerning general health topics frequently addressed in the workplace - educational materials were drawn from authoritative sources pertaining to that week’s topic | Objective (activPAL and ActiGraph) |
Graves et al. 2015 [30] | Parallel-group RCT | University, England | Total: n = 44 Intervention group n = 23 Control group n = 21 | Sit-stand desks, advice on usage (intervention duration: 8 weeks) - simple intervention Theory use not explicitly mentioned | Control group received no modifications | Subjective (ecological momentary assessment - EMA) |
Healy et al. 2013 [23] Associated paper (additional quantitative findings): Stephens et al. 2014 [65] | Non-randomised | Government agency, Australia | Total: n = 43 Intervention group n = 22 Control group n = 21 | Multicomponent intervention - organisational element (organisational strategies to sit less, liaison person in organisation), environmental element (sit-stand desks), individual element (health coaches with feedback) (intervention duration: approx. 4 weeks) - complex intervention Theory use not explicitly mentioned (although likely based on social cognitive theory and socio-ecological theory as per was a pilot for the study below) | Control group received no modifications | Objective (activPAL) |
Healy et al. 2016 [31] Associated papers: (protocol) Dunstan et al. 2013 [59] (intervention development) Neuhaus et al. 2014 [61] (pilot testing) Healy et al. 2013 [23] and Neuhaus et al. 2014 [32] (description paper) Healy et al. 2016 [66] | Cluster RCT | Government agency, Australia | Total: n = 231 Intervention group n = 136 Control group n = 95 | Multicomponent intervention - organisational element (organisational strategies to sit less, liaison person in organisation), environmental element (sit-stand desks), individual element (health coaches with feedback) (intervention duration: 12 months) - complex intervention Theory used - social cognitive theory and socio-ecological theory | Control group maintained usual practice but received written feedback on their activity and biomarker outcomes at 3-months (baseline and 3-month results provided) and 12-months | Objective (activPAL) |
Neuhaus et al. 2014 [32] | Quasi-RCT | University, Australia | Total: n = 44 Multicomponent intervention n = 16 Workstation only n = 14 Control group n = 14 | Multicomponent intervention - organisational elements (management support), environmental elements (sit-stand desks), individual elements (face-to-face coaching, feedback and goal-setting) - complex intervention Workstation only group too - simple intervention (intervention duration: 3 months) Theory used - social cognitive theory and socio-ecological theory | Control group received no modifications | Objective (activPAL) |
Pronk et al. 2012 [33] | Non-randomised | Non-profit, health organisation, USA | Total: n = 34 Intervention group n = 24 Control group n = 10 | Sit-stand desks as part of a comprehensive and multicomponent general health and wellbeing programme (intervention duration: 4 weeks) - simple intervention Theory use not explicitly mentioned | Control group received general health and wellbeing intervention but no sit-stand desks | Subjective (experience-sampling methodology) NB: Not used ESM score as don’t give a comparable measure of sitting time |
Puig-Ribera et al. 2015 [34] | Quasi-RCT | 4 x universities, Spain | Total: n = 264 Intervention group n = 129 Control group n = 135 | Automated web-based program with range of ecological support strategies to facilitate decrease in sitting time (intervention duration: 19 weeks) - complex intervention Ramping phase - first 8 weeks; maintenance phase - 9-19 weeks; follow-up - 2 months after completion Theory use not explicitly mentioned | Control group received no modifications | Subjective (self-report) |
Tobin et al. 2016 [35] Associated paper (qualitative study): Leavy et al. 2016 [64] | RCT (with associated qualitative study) | A non-government organisation (possibly private sector) and a university, Australia | Total: n = 37 Intervention group n = 18 Control group n = 19 | Sit-stand desks plus info on usage and brief educational intervention (intervention duration: 4 weeks) - complex intervention Theory use not explicitly mentioned | Control group received no modifications | Objective (activPAL) |
Urda et al. 2016 [36] | RCT | University, USA | Total: n = 44 Intervention group n = 22 Control group n = 22 | Intervention: alert every hour to disrupt sitting, set in university scheduling system; also received handouts with ideas for light PA whilst at work and educational info (intervention duration: 1 week) - complex intervention Theory use not explicitly mentioned | Control group received no modifications | Objective (activPAL) |
Brakenridge et al. 2016 [37] Associated paper (protocol): Brakenridge et al. 2016 [58] | Cluster RCT (2 interventions, no control) | Private sector organisation, Australia | Total: n = 153 Group ORG n = 87 Group ORG + tracker n = 66 | Organisational support “Group ORG” - complex intervention including leaflets, emails, workplace champions, management support Group ORG + tracker - as above but with LUMOback device (belt that syncs with mobile app) which provides feedback on sitting time and activity (intervention duration: 12 months) Mention of socio-ecological model, but not confirmed that this was used in intervention development | Other intervention group (“Group ORG”) used as a comparator | Objective (activPAL) |
Danquah et al. 2016 [52] | Cluster RCT | 3 public sector and 1 private sector organisations, Denmark and Greenland | Total: n = 317 Intervention group n = 173 Control group n = 144 | Multicomponent intervention - local ambassadors/ champions, management support, high meeting tables, routes for walking, educational lecture, workshop (strategies to reduce sitting developed), emails/text message reminders (intervention duration not documented) - complex intervention Sit-stand desks are standard in Denmark/Greenland, so all participants (intervention and control) had sit-stand desks. Theory used - social cognitive theory, Rogers’ diffusion on innovations theory and goal-setting theory | Other intervention group (with sit-stand desks provided as standard) used as comparator | Objective (ActiGraph) |
Donath et al. 2015 [38] | RCT | Private sector health insurance company, Switzerland | Total: n = 31 Intervention group n = 15 Control group n = 16 | Intervention group received sit-stand desks and also received pop-up messages to promote standing time (intervention duration: 12 weeks) - simple intervention Theory use not explicitly mentioned | Other intervention group (with sit-stand desks provided as standard) used as comparator | Objective (ActiGraph) |
Gilson et al. 2016 [39] | Non-randomised | Tele-communications, Australia | Total: n = 57 Intervention group 1 n = 33 Intervention group 2 n = 24 | Intervention 1: Co-produced intervention with a range of strategies to sit less - complex intervention Intervention 2: as above plus real-time feedback and prompts to sit less - complex intervention (intervention duration: 5 months) Theory use not explicitly mentioned | Other intervention group (“intervention 1”) used as comparator | Objective (sitting pad) |
Swartz et al. 2014 [41] | Parallel-group RCT | University, USA | Total: n = 68 Stand group n = 38 Step group n = 30 | Wrist-worn prompt to disrupt 60 continuous minutes of SB Stand group - get up from their chairs when prompt went off Step group - do 100 steps when prompted (intervention duration:? 1 week - unclear) Simple intervention Theory use not explicitly mentioned | Other intervention group (“Step group”) used as comparator | Objective (activPAL) |
Gilson et al. 2012 [42] | Pre-post intervention | Open plan office, not clear which type of organisation, Australia | Total: n = 11 | Sit-stand desks, educational brief re. benefits of reducing sitting time (intervention duration: 1 week) - complex intervention Theory use not explicitly mentioned | No control group | Objective (wrist accelerometer) |
Gorman et al. 2013 [43] Associated paper (dissertation report): Gorman 2012 [67] | Pre-post intervention - natural experiment | Academic physical activity research centre Canada | Total: n = 24 | Intervention: Move to purpose-built office space (specifically designed by research group) activity permissive physical environment (included sit-stand desks) (intervention duration: 3 months) - complex intervention but single level of influence (environmental only) Theory use not explicitly mentioned | No control group | Objective (activPAL) |
Grunseit et al. 2013 [44] | Mixed methods - pre-post in natural setting + qualitative study | Government organisation, Australia | Total: n = 18 | Sit-stand desks (permanent intervention, but post measures done after 92 days) - simple intervention Theory use not explicitly mentioned | No control group | Subjective (self-report) |
Jancey et al. 2016 [45] | Pre-post intervention -natural study | Unclear if private sector business organisation, Australia | Total: n = 42 | Intervention: move to a purpose-built building that was activity-permissive (permanent intervention, but post measures done at 4 months) - single level intervention (environmental) but complex given nature of a building move Theory use not explicitly mentioned | No control group | Objective (ActiGraph) |
Mackenzie et al. 2015 [46] | Pre-post intervention | Health-related research university, England | Total: n = 26 | Multicomponent intervention with management support, prompts, educational element, use of social media (co-produced intervention) (intervention duration: 4 weeks) - complex intervention Theory used - socio-ecological model | No control group | Subjective (self-report) |
Mansoubi et al. 2016 [47] | Pre-post intervention | University, England | Total: n = 40 | Sit-stand desks plus educational element plus online planning tool for comfortable computing (intervention duration: 3 months) - complex intervention Theory use not explicitly mentioned | No control group | Objective (activPAL and ActiGraph) |
Parry et al. 2013 [48] | Parallel-arms cluster RCT | 3 x Government organisations, Australia | Total: n = 133 Intervention A n = 49 Intervention B n = 30 Intervention C n = 54 | Intervention A: active office work (daily access to height-adjustable desk with integrated treadmill, or a treadmill plus a stationary cycle ergometer, plus other suggestions for staff to be actively working) Intervention B: traditional PA (pedometer challenge, active transport, active work, lunchtime walks) Intervention C: office ergonomics (active sitting, standing meetings, use of piano stool / air cushion) (intervention duration 12 weeks) NB some of the intervention elements were common to different groups All complex interventions Theory use not explicitly mentioned | No “no intervention” group | Objective (ActiGraph) |
Priebe et al. 2015 [49] | RCT | Private sector organisation, unclear of country setting, possibly Canada | Total: n = 99 HP/HC group n = 23 HP/LC group n = 24 LP/HC group n = 25 LP/LC group n = 27 | Email messages - received 1 of 4 different types: - high personal/high contextual (HP/HC) - high personal/low contextual (HP/LC) - low personal/high contextual (LP/HC) - low personal/low contextual (LP/LC) Complex intervention - only email message but personalised and contextualised One email and follow-up immediately and 3 work days after (intervention duration: 1 day) Theory used - focus theory (descriptive norms) | No “no intervention” group | Subjective (self-report) |
Richards and Brain 2015 [50] | Pre-post intervention | University, Wales | Total: n = 18 | Multicomponent intervention - began with a one-day event (On your feet Britain (OYFB)), then 30 min presentation identifying strategies to reduce sitting, email reminders daily, OYFB posters/leaflets (intervention duration: 10 days) - complex intervention Theory used – Behaviour Change Wheel, Theoretical Domains Framework, COM-B model, Theory of Planned behaviour | No control group | Subjective (self-report) |