57
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effectiveness of the Stand More AT (SMArT) Work intervention: cluster randomised controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          To evaluate the impact of a multicomponent intervention (Stand More AT (SMArT) Work) designed to reduce sitting time on short (three months), medium (six months), and longer term (12 months) changes in occupational, daily, and prolonged sitting, standing, and physical activity, and physical, psychological, and work related health.

          Design

          Cluster two arm randomised controlled trial.

          Setting

          National Health Service trust, England.

          Participants

          37 office clusters (146 participants) of desk based workers: 19 clusters (77 participants) were randomised to the intervention and 18 (69 participants) to control.

          Interventions

          The intervention group received a height adjustable workstation, a brief seminar with supporting leaflet, workstation instructions with sitting and standing targets, feedback on sitting and physical activity at three time points, posters, action planning and goal setting booklet, self monitoring and prompt tool, and coaching sessions (month 1 and every three months thereafter). The control group continued with usual practice.

          Main outcome measures

          The primary outcome was occupational sitting time (thigh worn accelerometer). Secondary outcomes were objectively measured daily sitting, prolonged sitting (≥30 minutes), and standing time, physical activity, musculoskeletal problems, self reported work related health (job performance, job satisfaction, work engagement, occupational fatigue, sickness presenteeism, and sickness absenteeism), cognitive function, and self reported psychological measures (mood and affective states, quality of life) assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months. Data were analysed using generalised estimating equation models, accounting for clustering.

          Results

          A significant difference between groups (in favour of the intervention group) was found in occupational sitting time at 12 months (−83.28 min/workday, 95% confidence interval −116.57 to −49.98, P=0.001). Differences between groups (in favour of the intervention group compared with control) were observed for occupational sitting time at three months (−50.62 min/workday, −78.71 to −22.54, P<0.001) and six months (−64.40 min/workday, −97.31 to −31.50, P<0.001) and daily sitting time at six months (−59.32 min/day, −88.40 to −30.25, P<0.001) and 12 months (−82.39 min/day, −114.54 to −50.26, P=0.001). Group differences (in favour of the intervention group compared with control) were found for prolonged sitting time, standing time, job performance, work engagement, occupational fatigue, sickness presenteeism, daily anxiety, and quality of life. No differences were seen for sickness absenteeism.

          Conclusions

          SMArT Work successfully reduced sitting time over the short, medium, and longer term, and positive changes were observed in work related and psychological health.

          Trial registration

          Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10967042.

          Related collections

          Most cited references74

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions

          Background Improving the design and implementation of evidence-based practice depends on successful behaviour change interventions. This requires an appropriate method for characterising interventions and linking them to an analysis of the targeted behaviour. There exists a plethora of frameworks of behaviour change interventions, but it is not clear how well they serve this purpose. This paper evaluates these frameworks, and develops and evaluates a new framework aimed at overcoming their limitations. Methods A systematic search of electronic databases and consultation with behaviour change experts were used to identify frameworks of behaviour change interventions. These were evaluated according to three criteria: comprehensiveness, coherence, and a clear link to an overarching model of behaviour. A new framework was developed to meet these criteria. The reliability with which it could be applied was examined in two domains of behaviour change: tobacco control and obesity. Results Nineteen frameworks were identified covering nine intervention functions and seven policy categories that could enable those interventions. None of the frameworks reviewed covered the full range of intervention functions or policies, and only a minority met the criteria of coherence or linkage to a model of behaviour. At the centre of a proposed new framework is a 'behaviour system' involving three essential conditions: capability, opportunity, and motivation (what we term the 'COM-B system'). This forms the hub of a 'behaviour change wheel' (BCW) around which are positioned the nine intervention functions aimed at addressing deficits in one or more of these conditions; around this are placed seven categories of policy that could enable those interventions to occur. The BCW was used reliably to characterise interventions within the English Department of Health's 2010 tobacco control strategy and the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence's guidance on reducing obesity. Conclusions Interventions and policies to change behaviour can be usefully characterised by means of a BCW comprising: a 'behaviour system' at the hub, encircled by intervention functions and then by policy categories. Research is needed to establish how far the BCW can lead to more efficient design of effective interventions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Validity and Reproducibility of a Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument

              The construct validity of a quantitative work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI) measure of health outcomes was tested for use in clinical trials, along with its reproducibility when administered by 2 different methods. 106 employed individuals affected by a health problem were randomised to receive either 2 self-administered questionnaires (self administration) or one self-administered questionnaire followed by a telephone interview (interviewer administration). Construct validity of the WPAI measures of time missed from work, impairment of work and regular activities due to overall health and symptoms, were assessed relative to measures of general health perceptions, role (physical), role (emotional), pain, symptom severity and global measures of work and interference with regular activity. Multivariate linear regression models were used to explain the variance in work productivity and regular activity by validation measures. Data generated by interviewer-administration of the WPAI had higher construct validity and fewer omissions than that obtained by self-administration of the instrument. All measures of work productivity and activity impairment were positively correlated with measures which had proven construct validity. These validation measures explained 54 to 64% of variance (p less than 0.0001) in productivity and activity impairment variables of the WPAI. Overall work productivity (health and symptom) was significantly related to general health perceptions and the global measures of interference with regular activity. The self-administered questionnaire had adequate reproducibility but less construct validity than interviewer administration. Both administration methods of the WPAI warrant further evaluation as a measure of morbidity.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: associate professor in physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and health
                Role: reader in physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and health
                Role: professor of physical activity and health
                Role: professor of diabetes medicine
                Role: head of the physical activity laboratory at Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute
                Role: senior lecturer in the measurement of physical activity
                Role: associate professor of population and public health sciences
                Role: research associate
                Role: research associate
                Role: statistician
                Role: reader in health psychology
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2018
                08 October 2018
                : 363
                : k3870
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester LE5 4PW, UK
                [2 ]NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK
                [3 ]Institute for Resilient Regions, University of Southern Queensland, Education City, Springfield Central, QLD, Australia
                [4 ]Leicester Diabetes Centre, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK
                [5 ]School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
                [6 ]Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
                [7 ]Department of Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
                [8 ]Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
                [9 ]School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, Australia
                [10 ]School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
                [11 ]Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, The Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
                [12 ]School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
                [13 ]Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: C L Edwardson ce95@ 123456le.ac.uk
                Article
                edwc044237
                10.1136/bmj.k3870
                6174726
                30305278
                c9954bd1-e905-4214-bf9d-081d07433a91
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 08 August 2018
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article