The impact of active workstations on workplace productivity and performance: a systematic review

Active workstations have been recommended for reducing sedentary behavior in the workplace. It is important to understand if the use of these workstations has an impact on worker productivity. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the effect of active workstations on workplace productivity and performance. A total of 3303 articles were initially identified by a systematic search and seven articles met eligibility criteria for inclusion. A quality appraisal was conducted to assess risk of bias, confounding, internal and external validity, and reporting. Most of the studies reported cognitive performance as opposed to productivity. Five studies assessed cognitive performance during use of an active workstation, usually in a single session. Sit-stand desks had no detrimental effect on performance, however, some studies with treadmill and cycling workstations identified potential decreases in performance. Many of the studies lacked the power required to achieve statistical significance. Three studies assessed workplace productivity after prolonged use of an active workstation for between 12 and 52 weeks. These studies reported no significant effect on productivity. Active workstations do not appear to decrease workplace performance

Taking A Stand: The Effects Of Standing Desks On Task Performance And Engagement

Time spent sitting is associated with negative health outcomes, motivating some individuals to adopt standing desk workstations. This study represents the first investigation of the effects of standing desk use on reading comprehension and creativity. In a counterbalanced, within-subjects design, 96 participants completed reading comprehension and creativity tasks while both sitting and standing. Participants self-reported their mood during the tasks and also responded to measures of expended effort and task difficulty. In addition, participants indicated whether they expected that they would perform better on work-relevant tasks while sitting or standing. Despite participants’ beliefs that they would perform worse on most tasks while standing, body position did not affect reading comprehension or creativity performance, nor did it affect perceptions of effort or difficulty. Mood was also unaffected by position, with a few exceptions: Participants exhibited greater task engagement (i.e., interest, enthusiasm, and alertness) and less comfort while standing rather than sitting. In sum, performance and psychological experience as related to task completion were nearly entirely uninfluenced by acute (~30-min) standing desk use. View Full-Tex

Advancing the measurement of sedentary behaviour : classifying posture and physical (in-)activity

Sedentary behaviour, defined by a sitting body posture with minimal-intensity physical activity, is an emergent public health topic. The time spent sedentary is associated with the incidence of non-communicable chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease and significantly shortens life-expectancy in a dose-response relationship. Office workers are at particular risk of developing diseases related to sedentary behaviour due to their excessive sedentary work. Even though thigh-worn posture sensors are recommended to measure sedentary behaviour, the vast majority of the evidence was collected with waist-worn physical activity sensors, and we still lack a method to measure the posture and the physical activity component of sedentary behaviour simultaneously. This thesis aims to advance the measurement of sedentary behaviour in an office context by developing new device-based methods to measure both components simultaneously, and by validating and subsequently applying the most promising method to measure the actual amount of sedentary behaviour in the daily life of office workers. The method development showed that it is possible to measure both components of sedentary behaviour with only one sensor, preferably worn on the thigh or waist. While an accelerometer is sufficient for the thigh, an inertial-measurement-unit is preferable for the waist due to a significantly improved posture classification. The method validation subsequently confirmed that waist-worn physical activity sensors, the prevailing choice to measure sedentary behaviour, measure minimal-intensity physical activity. Furthermore, the study uncovered a serious postural dependency causing a systematic overestimation of minimal-intensity physical activity while sitting compared to standing. The subsequent method application considered the posture dependency and combined a thigh-worn posture sensor with a waist-worn physical activity sensor to POPAI, the Posture and Physical Activity Index. POPAI has a sensitivity of 92.5% and a specificity of 91.9% to measure sedentary behaviour and classified 45.0% of the office workers wake-time sedentary. The posture sensor alone overestimated sedentary time by 30.3%, and the physical activity sensor alone overestimated sedentary time by 22.5%. The difference can be explained by active sitting (2.0 hours per day) and inactive standing (1.8 hours per day), both of which are much more common than previously thought. This thesis confirms the recommendation to use a thigh-worn accelerometer to measure sedentary behaviour and adds the information that such a sensor is also able to measure physical (in-)activity in sitting. Thus, there is no need to approximate sedentary behaviour with sitting, nor is there a need to approximate it with inactivity. In fact, these approximations lead to inaccurate and imprecise results substantially overestimating sedentary behaviour. Due to the predominant use of physical activity sensors to measure sedentary behaviour, recommendations to limit sedentary behaviour should address a limitation of the time spent inactive rather than the time spent sitting. If it turns out that sitting matters, one could expect a much stronger relationship between sedentary behaviour measured with a combined method such as POPAI and detrimental health effects

Effects of the FitDesk on Work Performance in College Students

Being sedentary is a behavior that is practiced far too often by individuals. This is worrisome because evidence suggests that uninterrupted periods of sitting can be harmful to one’s health. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a cycling workstation, the FitDesk, on work performance, blood pressure, heart rate, and the energy expenditure of college students. It was hypothesized that pedaling with the FitDesk would not have an effect on college students’ typing performance, reading comprehension, and attention/information processing when compared to those sitting at the FitDesk. In addition, an acute reduction in blood pressure, increase in heart rate, and increase in energy expenditure was anticipated in those pedaling with the FitDesk. Twenty sedentary college students randomly assigned to complete a 30-min. pedaling condition and a 30- min. sitting condition using the FitDesk while performing three randomized tasks: a reading comprehension task, typing task, and an attention/information processing task. Energy expenditure and heart rate were assessed during each trial. Blood pressure was measured prior to the start of each trial and at the end of each trial. The results indicated that there were no significant differences in reading comprehension, typing performance, and attention/information processing tasks between the pedaling and sitting conditions. Heart rate, blood pressure, and energy expenditure significantly increased in the pedaling condition when compared to sitting condition. It was concluded that students could pedal with FitDesk and not influence work performance while increasing their energy expenditure, which may help with weight loss and reducing sedentary behavior

The Energy Cost of Sitting versus Standing Naturally in Man

Purpose Prolonged sitting is a major health concern, targeted via government policy and the proliferation of height-adjustable workstations and wearable technologies to encourage standing. Such interventions have the potential to influence energy balance and thus facilitate effective management of body/fat mass. It is therefore remarkable that the energy cost of sitting versus standing naturally remains unknown. Methods Metabolic requirements were quantified via indirect calorimetry from expired gases in 46 healthy men and women (age, 27 ± 12 yr; mass, 79.3 ± 14.7 kg; body mass index, 24.7 ± 3.1 kg·m -2, waist/hip, 0.81 ± 0.06) under basal conditions (i.e., resting metabolic rate) and then, in a randomized and counterbalanced sequence, during lying, sitting and standing. Critically, no restrictions were placed on natural/spontaneous bodily movements (i.e., fidgeting) to reveal the fundamental contrast between sitting and standing in situ while maintaining a comfortable posture. Results The mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) increment in energy expenditure was 0.18 (95% CI, 0.06-0.31 kJ·min -1) from resting metabolic rate to lying was 0.15 (95% CI, 0.03-0.27 kJ·min -1) from lying to sitting and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.53-0.77 kJ·min -1) from sitting to standing. An ancillary observation was that the energy cost of each posture above basal metabolic requirements exhibited marked interindividual variance, which was inversely correlated with resting heart rate for all postures (r = -0.5; -0.7 to -0.1) and positively correlated with self-reported physical activity levels for lying (r = 0.4; 0.1 to 0.7) and standing (r = 0.6; 0.3-0.8). Conclusions Interventions designed to reduce sitting typically encourage 30 to 120 min·d -1 more standing in situ (rather than perambulation), so the 12% difference from sitting to standing reported here does not represent an effective strategy for the treatment of obesity (i.e., weight loss) but could potentially attenuate any continued escalation of the ongoing obesity epidemic at a population level. </p

Attaching metabolic expenditures to standard occupational classification systems: perspectives from time-use research

Abstract Background Traditionally, time-use data have been used to inform a broad range of economic and sociological research topics. One of the new areas in time-use research is the study of physical activity (PA) and physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE). Time-use data can be used to study PAEE by assigning MET values to daily activities using the Ainsworth Compendium of Physical Activities. Although most diarists record their daily activities accurately and in detail, they are only required to record their paid working hours, not the job-specific tasks they undertake. This makes it difficult to assign MET values to paid work episodes. Methods In this methodological paper, we explain how we addressed this problem by using the detailed information about respondents’ occupational status included in time-use survey household and individual questionnaires. We used the 2008 ISCO manual, a lexicon of the International Labour Organization of occupational titles and their related job-specific tasks. We first assigned a MET value to job-specific tasks using the Ainsworth compendium (2011) then calculated MET values for each of the 436 occupations in the ISCO-08 manual by averaging all job-specific MET values for each occupation. Results The ISCO-08 Major Groups of ‘elementary occupations’ and ‘craft and related trades workers’ are associated with high PAEE variation in terms of their job-specific MET values and together represented 21.6% of the Belgian working population in 2013. We recommend that these occupational categories should be prioritised for further in-depth research into occupational activity (OA). Conclusions We developed a clear and replicable procedure to calculate occupational activity for all ISCO-08 occupations. All of our calculations are attached to this manuscript which other researchers may use, replicate and refine

Adverse Effects of Sit and Stand Workstations on the Health Outcomes of Assembly Line Workers: A Cross-sectional Study

Introduction: Sitting and standing workstations can affect individual's health outcomes differently. This study aimed to assess the effects of sit and stand workstations on energy expenditure and some blood parameters, musculoskeletal symptom/pain and discomfort, fatigue, and productivity among workers of assembly line of a belt factory. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 47 male assembly line workers (24 workers in sitting workstation and 23 workers in standing workstation) with at least one year of working experience. Data were gathered via demographic/occupational characteristics, Fitbit system, medical records, Persian version of the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (P-NMQ), Persian version of the Numeric Rating Scale (P-NRS), Persian version of the Swedish Occupational Fatigue (P-SOFI), and Persian version of the Health and Work Questionnaire (P-HWQ). Results: The findings of the present study revealed that the energy expenditure, blood glucose/triglyceride there are not statistically differences between in sitting and standing groups. In addition, the prevalence of the MSs in the neck, lower back, knees, and ankles/feet in standing group was significantly higher than the sitting group. Generally, occupational fatigue was higher among the standing group compared to sitting group. About productivity, the ‘concentration/focus’ and ‘impatience/irritability’ subscales in sitting group were higher than the standing group. Contrariwise, other subscales of the productivity, including ‘productivity’, ‘supervisor relations’, ‘non-work satisfaction’, ‘work satisfaction’ in the standing group were higher than the sitting group. Conclusions: To reduce the adverse effects of sitting and standing workstations on individual's health outcomes, planning to use sit-stand workstations is recommended. &nbsp

Impact of sit-stand desks at work on energy expenditure and sedentary time: protocol for a feasibility study

This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from BioMed Central via http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40814-016-0071-1${\bf Background:}$ Prolonged sitting, an independent risk factor for disease development and premature mortality, is increasing in prevalence in high- and middle-income countries, with no signs of abating. Adults in such countries spend the largest proportion of their day in sedentary behaviour, most of which is accumulated at work. One promising method for reducing workplace sitting is the use of sit-stand desks. However, key uncertainties remain about this intervention, related to the quality of existing studies and a lack of focus on key outcomes, including energy expenditure. We are planning a randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of sit-stand desks at work on energy expenditure and sitting time in the short and longer term. To reduce the uncertainties related to the design of this trial, we propose a preliminary study to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the recruitment, allocation, measurement, retention and intervention procedures. ${\bf Methods:}$ Five hundred office-based employees from two companies in Cambridge, UK, will complete a survey to assess their interest in participating in a trial on the use of sit-stand desks at work. The workspaces of 100 of those interested in participating will be assessed for sit-stand desk installation suitability, and 20 participants will be randomised to either the use of sit-stand desks at work for 3 months or a waiting list control group. Energy expenditure and sitting time, measured via Actiheart and activPAL monitors, respectively, as well as cardio-metabolic and anthropometric outcomes and other outcomes relating to health and work performance, will be assessed in 10 randomly selected participants. All participants will also be interviewed about their experience of using the desks and participating in the study. ${\bf Discussion:}$ The findings are expected to inform the design of a trial assessing the impact of sit-stand desks at work on short and longer term workplace sitting, taking into account their impact on energy expenditure and the extent to which their use has compensation effects outside the workplace. The findings from such a trial are expected to inform discussions regarding the potential of sit-stand desks at work to alleviate the harm to cardio-metabolic health arising from prolonged sitting.This work was supported by a grant from the Department of Health Policy Research Program (Policy Research Unit in Behaviour and Health [PR-UN-0409-10109]), the Medical Research Council (Unit Programme number MC_UU_12015/3) and the British Heart Foundation (Intermediate Basic Science Research Fellowship grant FS/12/58/29709)

Impact of sit-stand desks at work on energy expenditure and sedentary time: protocol for a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged sitting, an independent risk factor for disease development and premature mortality, is increasing in prevalence in high- and middle-income countries, with no signs of abating. Adults in such countries spend the largest proportion of their day in sedentary behaviour, most of which is accumulated at work. One promising method for reducing workplace sitting is the use of sit-stand desks. However, key uncertainties remain about this intervention, related to the quality of existing studies and a lack of focus on key outcomes, including energy expenditure. We are planning a randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of sit-stand desks at work on energy expenditure and sitting time in the short and longer term. To reduce the uncertainties related to the design of this trial, we propose a preliminary study to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the recruitment, allocation, measurement, retention and intervention procedures. METHODS: Five hundred office-based employees from two companies in Cambridge, UK, will complete a survey to assess their interest in participating in a trial on the use of sit-stand desks at work. The workspaces of 100 of those interested in participating will be assessed for sit-stand desk installation suitability, and 20 participants will be randomised to either the use of sit-stand desks at work for 3 months or a waiting list control group. Energy expenditure and sitting time, measured via Actiheart and activPAL monitors, respectively, as well as cardio-metabolic and anthropometric outcomes and other outcomes relating to health and work performance, will be assessed in 10 randomly selected participants. All participants will also be interviewed about their experience of using the desks and participating in the study. DISCUSSION: The findings are expected to inform the design of a trial assessing the impact of sit-stand desks at work on short and longer term workplace sitting, taking into account their impact on energy expenditure and the extent to which their use has compensation effects outside the workplace. The findings from such a trial are expected to inform discussions regarding the potential of sit-stand desks at work to alleviate the harm to cardio-metabolic health arising from prolonged sitting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN44827407.This work was supported by a grant from the Department of Health Policy Research Program (Policy Research Unit in Behaviour and Health [PR-UN-0409-10109]), the Medical Research Council (Unit Programme number MC_UU_12015/3) and the British Heart Foundation (Intermediate Basic Science Research Fellowship grant FS/12/58/29709 to KW)

Occupational physical activity in sedentary and active workers

2017 Spring.Includes bibliographical references.With the increasing use of technology in the workplace, many jobs are becoming more sedentary. The purpose of this study was to establish a quantitative baseline measure of occupational physical activity (OPA) in active and sedentary workers. Two activity trackers (Fitbit Charge HR™ and Hexoskin) were used to assess activity measures (step count, heart rate and energy expenditure) among workers during their work shift. The first objective of the study was to assess the agreement between two types of accelerometer-based activity trackers as measures of OPA. The second objective of this study was to assess differences in measures of OPA among workers in physically active and sedentary work environments. There was a statistically significant difference in measures of total step counts between the two devices. When comparing active and sedentary workers there were also statistically significant differences in measures of step counts, mean percent heart rate increase, maximum heart rate range and energy expenditure. Conclusion: The Fitbit Charge HR™ and Hexoskin had significant differences in measures of step counts and heart rate. When comparing active and sedentary workers, there were significant differences in measures of step counts, mean heart rate, maximum heart rate range required by job, and energy expenditure. The results of the present study provide quantitative evidence that active workers require greater physiologic demands than sedentary workers