Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Mar 17;3(3):CD010912.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010912.pub3.

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work

Nipun Shrestha  1 , Katriina T Kukkonen-Harjula, Jos H Verbeek, Sharea Ijaz, Veerle Hermans, Soumyadeep Bhaumik
Affiliations

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work

Nipun Shrestha et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Update in

Abstract

Background: Office work has changed considerably over the previous couple of decades and has become sedentary in nature. Physical inactivity at workplaces and particularly increased sitting has been linked to increase in cardiovascular disease, obesity and overall mortality.

Objectives: To evaluate the effects of workplace interventions to reduce sitting at work compared to no intervention or alternative interventions.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, OSH UPDATE, PsycINFO, Clinical trials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to 2 June, 2015. We also screened reference lists of articles and contacted authors to find more studies to include.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCTs), and quasi-randomised controlled trials of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) with a concurrent control group. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or objectively measured by means of an accelerometer-inclinometer. We considered energy expenditure, duration and number of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more, work productivity and adverse events as secondary outcomes.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional data where required.

Main results: We included 20 studies, two cross-over RCTs, 11 RCTs, three cRCTs and four CBAs, with a total of 2180 participants from high income nations. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (nine studies), policy changes (two studies), information and counselling (seven studies) and interventions from multiple categories (two studies). One study had both physical workplace changes and information and counselling components. We did not find any studies that had investigated the effect of periodic breaks or standing or walking meetings. Physical workplace changesA sit-stand desk alone compared to no intervention reduced sitting time at work per workday with between thirty minutes to two hours at short term (up to three months) follow-up (six studies, 218 participants, very low quality evidence). In two studies, sit-stand desks with additional counselling reduced sitting time at work in the same range at short-term follow-up (61 participants, very low quality evidence). One study found a reduction at six months' follow-up of -56 minutes (95% CI -101 to -12, very low quality evidence) compared to no intervention. Also total sitting time at work and outside work decreased with sit-stand desks compared to no intervention (MD -78 minutes, 95% CI -125 to -31, one study) as did the duration of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -52 minutes, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies). This is considerably less than the two to four hours recommended by experts. Sit-stand desks did not have a considerable effect on work performance, musculoskeletal symptoms or sick leave. It remains unclear if standing can repair the harms of sitting because there is hardly any extra energy expenditure.The effects of active workstations were inconsistent. Treadmill desks combined with counselling reduced sitting time at work (MD -29 minutes, 95% CI -55 to -2, one study) compared to no intervention at 12 weeks' follow-up. Pedalling workstations combined with information did not reduce inactive sitting at work considerably (MD -12 minutes, 95% CI -24 to 1, one study) compared to information alone at 16 weeks' follow-up. The quality of evidence was low for active workstations. Policy changesTwo studies with 443 participants provided low quality evidence that walking strategies did not have a considerable effect on workplace sitting time at 10 weeks' (MD -16 minutes, 95% CI -54 to 23) or 21 weeks' (MD -17 minutes, 95% CI -58 to 25) follow-up respectively. Information and counsellingCounselling reduced sitting time at work (MD -28 minutes, 95% CI -52 to -5, two studies, low quality evidence) at medium term (three months to 12 months) follow-up. Mindfulness training did not considerably reduce workplace sitting time (MD -2 minutes, 95% CI -22 to 18) at six months' follow-up and at 12 months' follow-up (MD -16 minutes, 95% CI -45 to 12, one study, low quality evidence). There was no considerable increase in work engagement with counselling.There was an inconsistent effect of computer prompting on sitting time at work. One study found no considerable effect on sitting at work (MD -17 minutes, 95% CI -48 to 14, low quality evidence) at 10 days' follow-up, while another study reported a significant reduction in sitting at work (MD -55 minutes, 95% CI -96 to -14, low quality evidence) at 13 weeks' follow-up. Computer prompts to stand reduced sitting at work by 14 minutes more (95% CI 10 to 19, one study) compared to computer prompts to step at six days' follow-up. Computer prompts did not change the number of sitting episodes that last 30 minutes or longer. Interventions from multiple categories Interventions combining multiple categories had an inconsistent effect on sitting time at work, with a reduction in sitting time at 12 weeks' (25 participants, very low quality evidence) and six months' (294 participants, low quality evidence) follow-up in two studies but no considerable effect at 12 months' follow-up in one study (MD -47.98, 95% CI -103 to 7, 294 participants, low quality evidence).

Authors' conclusions: At present there is very low to low quality evidence that sit-stand desks may decrease workplace sitting between thirty minutes to two hours per day without having adverse effects at the short or medium term. There is no evidence on the effects in the long term. There were no considerable or inconsistent effects of other interventions such as changing work organisation or information and counselling. There is a need for cluster-randomised trials with a sufficient sample size and long term follow-up to determine the effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce objectively measured sitting time at work.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Nipun Shrestha: None known.

Jos Verbeek: I am employed by the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health to coordinate the Cochrane Work Review Group.

Sharea Ijaz: None known.

Katriina T Kukkonen‐Harjula: None known.

Veerle Hermans: None known.

Soumyadeep Bhaumik: None known.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA Study flow diagram
Figure 2
Figure 2
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies
Figure 3
Figure 3
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study
Analysis 1.1
Analysis 1.1
Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desks with or without counselling versus no intervention CBA, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up three months.
Analysis 1.2
Analysis 1.2
Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desks with or without counselling versus no intervention CBA, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work. follow‐up six months.
Analysis 1.3
Analysis 1.3
Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desks with or without counselling versus no intervention CBA, Outcome 3 Mean difference in time in sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up three months.
Analysis 1.4
Analysis 1.4
Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desks with or without counselling versus no intervention CBA, Outcome 4 Mean difference in total time spent sitting at and outside work, follow‐up three months.
Analysis 1.5
Analysis 1.5
Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desks with or without counselling versus no intervention CBA, Outcome 5 Work performance (1‐10 scale), follow‐up three months.
Analysis 1.6
Analysis 1.6
Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desks with or without counselling versus no intervention CBA, Outcome 6 Proportion with ≥ 1 sick days in the last three months.
Analysis 1.7
Analysis 1.7
Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desks with or without counselling versus no intervention CBA, Outcome 7 Proportion with ≥ 1 sick days in the last month.
Analysis 1.8
Analysis 1.8
Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desks with or without counselling versus no intervention CBA, Outcome 8 Musculoskeletal symptoms.
Analysis 2.1
Analysis 2.1
Comparison 2 Sit‐stand desks +counselling versus sit‐stand desks CBA, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up three months.
Analysis 2.2
Analysis 2.2
Comparison 2 Sit‐stand desks +counselling versus sit‐stand desks CBA, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time in sitting episodes lasting ≥ 30 minutes, follow‐up three months.
Analysis 2.3
Analysis 2.3
Comparison 2 Sit‐stand desks +counselling versus sit‐stand desks CBA, Outcome 3 Work performance (1‐10 scale), follow‐up three months.
Analysis 2.4
Analysis 2.4
Comparison 2 Sit‐stand desks +counselling versus sit‐stand desks CBA, Outcome 4 Proportion with ≥ 1 sick days in the last month.
Analysis 3.1
Analysis 3.1
Comparison 3 Sit‐stand desks versus no intervention RCT, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow up short term.
Analysis 3.2
Analysis 3.2
Comparison 3 Sit‐stand desks versus no intervention RCT, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up eight weeks.
Analysis 3.3
Analysis 3.3
Comparison 3 Sit‐stand desks versus no intervention RCT, Outcome 3 Mean difference in musculoskeletal symptoms, follow‐up eight weeks.
Analysis 4.1
Analysis 4.1
Comparison 4 Treadmill desks plus counselling versus no intervention RCT, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up three months.
Analysis 5.1
Analysis 5.1
Comparison 5 Cycling workstations + information and counselling versus information and counselling only RCT, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent in inactive sitting at work, follow‐up 16 weeks.
Analysis 6.1
Analysis 6.1
Comparison 6 Walking strategies versus no intervention RCT, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up 10 weeks.
Analysis 6.2
Analysis 6.2
Comparison 6 Walking strategies versus no intervention RCT, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up 21 weeks.
Analysis 7.1
Analysis 7.1
Comparison 7 Computer prompts + information versus information alone RCT, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short term.
Analysis 7.2
Analysis 7.2
Comparison 7 Computer prompts + information versus information alone RCT, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up 13 weeks.
Analysis 7.3
Analysis 7.3
Comparison 7 Computer prompts + information versus information alone RCT, Outcome 3 Mean difference in number of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up 10 days.
Analysis 7.4
Analysis 7.4
Comparison 7 Computer prompts + information versus information alone RCT, Outcome 4 Mean difference in time in sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up 10 days.
Analysis 7.5
Analysis 7.5
Comparison 7 Computer prompts + information versus information alone RCT, Outcome 5 Mean difference in energy expenditure, follow‐up 13 weeks.
Analysis 8.1
Analysis 8.1
Comparison 8 Computer prompts to step versus computer prompts to stand RCT, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up six days.
Analysis 8.2
Analysis 8.2
Comparison 8 Computer prompts to step versus computer prompts to stand RCT, Outcome 2 Mean difference in number of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up six days.
Analysis 9.1
Analysis 9.1
Comparison 9 E‐newsletters on workplace sitting versus e‐newsletters on health education RCT, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up 10 weeks.
Analysis 10.1
Analysis 10.1
Comparison 10 Counselling versus no intervention cluster RCT, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up medium term.
Analysis 10.2
Analysis 10.2
Comparison 10 Counselling versus no intervention cluster RCT, Outcome 2 Mean difference in total time spent sitting at and outside work, follow‐up six months.
Analysis 10.3
Analysis 10.3
Comparison 10 Counselling versus no intervention cluster RCT, Outcome 3 Work engagement (0‐6 scale), follow‐up 12 months.
Analysis 11.1
Analysis 11.1
Comparison 11 Mindfulness training versus no intervention RCT, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up six months.
Analysis 11.2
Analysis 11.2
Comparison 11 Mindfulness training versus no intervention RCT, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up 12 months.
Analysis 11.3
Analysis 11.3
Comparison 11 Mindfulness training versus no intervention RCT, Outcome 3 Work engagement (0 ‐ 6 scale), follow‐up six months.
Analysis 11.4
Analysis 11.4
Comparison 11 Mindfulness training versus no intervention RCT, Outcome 4 Work engagement (0‐6 scale), follow‐up 12 months.
Analysis 12.1
Analysis 12.1
Comparison 12 Multiple interventions versus no intervention RCT, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up 6 months.
Analysis 12.2
Analysis 12.2
Comparison 12 Multiple interventions versus no intervention RCT, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up 12 months.
Analysis 12.3
Analysis 12.3
Comparison 12 Multiple interventions versus no intervention RCT, Outcome 3 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up 12 weeks.
Analysis 12.4
Analysis 12.4
Comparison 12 Multiple interventions versus no intervention RCT, Outcome 4 Work engagement (0‐6 scale), follow‐up 12 months.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

    1. Alkhajah TA, Reeves MM, Eakin EG, Winkler EA, Owen N, Healy GN. Sit‐stand workstations: a pilot intervention to reduce office sitting time. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2012;43(3):298‐303. - PubMed
    2. Healy G, Alkhajah T, Winkler E, Owen N, Eakin E. Reducing sitting time in office workers: Efficacy and acceptability of sit‐stand workstations. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 2012;15:S196.
    1. Carr LJ, Leonhard C, Tucker S, Fethke N, Benzo R, Gerr F. Total worker health intervention increases activity of sedentary workers. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2015;49:[Epub ahead of print]. - PubMed
    2. NCT02071420. Efficacy of a combined ergonomic health promotion intervention on employee health. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02071420 (accessed 28 November 2015).
    1. ACTRN12612000072819. The Stand@Work Pilot Study. A randomised controlled trial to see if using sit‐stand workstations reduces sitting time in office workers. https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=1261... (accessed 3 June 2015).
    2. Chau JY, Daley M, Dunn S, Srinivasan A, Do A, Bauman AE, et al. The effectiveness of sit‐stand workstations for changing office workers' sitting time: results from the Stand@Work randomized controlled trial pilot. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2014;11:127. - PMC - PubMed
    3. Chau JY, Daley M, Srinivasan A, Dunn S, Bauman AE, Ploeg HP. Desk‐based workers’ perspectives on using sit‐stand workstations: a qualitative analysis of the Stand@Work study. BMC Public Health 2014;14:752. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Coffeng JK, Boot CR, Duijts SF, Twisk JW, Mechelen W, Hendriksen IJ. Effectiveness of a worksite social & physical environment intervention on need for recovery, physical activity and relaxation; results of a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE 2014;9(12):e114860. - PMC - PubMed
    2. Coffeng JK, Hendriksen IJ, Duijts SF, Proper KI, Mechelen WV, Boot CRL. The development of the Be Active & Relax "Vitality in Practice" (VIP) project and design of an RCT to reduce the need for recovery in office employees. BMC Public Health 2012;12:592. - PMC - PubMed
    3. Coffeng JK, Hendriksen IJ, Mechelen W, Boot CR. Process evaluation of a worksite social and physical environmental intervention. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2013;55(12):1409‐20. - PubMed
    4. Coffeng JK, Hendriksen IJM, Duijts SFA, Twisk JWR, Mechelen W, Boot CRL. Effectiveness of a combined social and physical environmental intervention on presenteeism, absenteeism, work performance and work engagement in office employees. Journal of Occupational Environment Medicine in press; Vol. 56, issue 3:258‐65. - PubMed
    5. NTR2553. The cost‐effectiveness of an intervention to increase physical activity and relaxation amongst office workers. http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2553 (accessed 3 June 2014).
    1. Donath L, Faude O, Schefer Y, Roth R, Zahner L. Repetitive daily point of choice prompts and occupational sit‐stand transfers, concentration and neuromuscular performance in office workers: an RCT. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2015;12(4):4340‐53. - PMC - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

    1. Aadahl M, Linneberg A, Møller TC, Rosenørn S, Dunstan DW, Witte DR, et al. Motivational counselling to reduce sitting time: a community‐based randomized controlled trial in adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2015;47(5):576‐86. - PubMed
    2. NCT00289237. Lifestyle intervention in a general population for prevention of ischaemic heart disease. https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00289237 2012 (accessed 1 December 2015).
    1. Adams 2012. On our feet: Feasibility trial of an intervention to reduce sedentary behavior and increase physical activity (PhD Thesis). Greensboro: The University of North Carolina, 2012.
    2. Melanie M. Adams MM, Davis PG, Gill DL. A hybrid online intervention for reducing sedentary behavior in obese women. Frontiers in Public Health 2013;1:45. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aittasalo M, Miilunpalo S, Suni J. The effectiveness of physical activity counselling in a work‐site setting. A randomised, controlled trial. Patient Education and Counselling 2004;55(2):193‐202. - PubMed
    1. Alderman BL, Olson RL, Mattina DM. Cognitive function during low‐intensity walking: a test of the treadmill workstation. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 2014;11(4):752‐8. - PubMed
    1. Ben‐Ner A, Hamann DJ, Koepp G, Manohar CU, Levine J. Treadmill workstations: the effects of walking while working on physical activity and work performance. PLoS ONE 2014;9(2):e88620. - PMC - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

    1. Carpenter K, Feltes L, Vuing B, Kalbes A, Koepp G, Dutta N, et al. Effect of sit‐stand workstations on metabolic risk in sedentary workers: A randomized controlled trial. The Journal of the Federation of American societies for Experimental Biology 2015;29:supplement 1.
    1. Dutta N, Koepp G, Schmitz C, Stovitz SD, Levine JA, Pereira MA. Impact of adjustable sit‐stand workstations on physical activity in sedentary office workers. Diabetes 2013;62:A186.
    1. Kirk A, Fitzsimons C, Murphy M, Mutrie N. Effect of a person centred consultation intervention to reduce the sedentary behaviour of working Scottish adults. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 2012;15:S314.

References to ongoing studies

    1. ACTRN12612001290886. The effectiveness of the 10,000 Steps workplace challenge in increasing health outcomes for employees at Rockhampton Regional Council. http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12612001290886.aspx (accessed 15 March 2014).
    1. ACTRN12614000252617. Comparison of organisational support vs. organisational plus technology support for reducing prolonged sitting in the office workplace. http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12614000252617.aspx (accessed 15 March 2014).
    1. Bergman F, Boraxbekk CJ, Wennberg P, Sörlin A Olsson T. Increasing physical activity in office workers – the Inphact Treadmill study; a study protocol for a 13‐month randomized controlled trial of treadmill workstations. BMC Public Health 2015;15(1):632. - PMC - PubMed
    2. NCT01997970. NEAT ‐ Prevention and treatment of overweight and obesity. (InphactUm). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01997970 (accessed 3 June 2015).
    1. ACTRN12611000742976. Stand Up Victoria: a trial to determine whether environmental modification and behavioural counselling can lead to reductions in workplace sitting time in office workers. http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12611000742976.aspx (accessed 15 March 2014).
    2. Dunstan DW, Wiesner G, Eakin EG, Neuhaus M, Owen N, LaMontagne AD, et al. Reducing office workers' sitting time: rationale and study design for the Stand Up Victoria cluster randomised trial. BMC Public Health 2013;13:1057. - PMC - PubMed
    3. Neuhaus M, Healy GN, Fjeldsoe BS, Lawler S, Owen N, Dunstan DW, et al. Iterative development of Stand Up Australia: a multi‐component intervention to reduce workplace sitting. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2014;11:21. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Finni T, Saakslahti A, Laukkanen A, Pesola A, Sipilä S. A family based tailored counselling to increase non‐exercise physical activity in adults with a sedentary job and physical activity in their young children: design and methods of a year‐long randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health2011; Vol. 11. - PMC - PubMed
    2. ISRCTN28668090. Actions to reduce sedentary time in parents and their young children. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28668090 (accessed 15 March 2014).

Additional references

    1. Aadahl M, Jorgensen T. Validation of a new self‐report instrument for measuring physical activity. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2003;35(7):1196‐202. - PubMed
    1. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Australasian Faculty of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. https://www.racp.edu.au/page/about‐afoem (accessed 12 December 2014).
    1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia's health 2008. http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442453674 (accessed 15 September 2013).
    1. Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Whitt MC, Irwin ML, Swartz AM, Strath SJ, et al. Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2000;32(9 Suppl):S498‐504. - PubMed
    1. Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Herrmann SD, Meckes N, Bassett DRJ, Tudor‐Locke C, et al. 2011 Compendium of physical activities: a second update of codes and MET values. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2011;43(8):1575‐81. - PubMed

Publication types