Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Intervenciones en el lugar de trabajo para la reducción de la sedestación laboral

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010912.pub4Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 20 junio 2018see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Salud laboral

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Nipun Shrestha

    Correspondencia a: Institute for Health and Sport (IHES), Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Katriina T Kukkonen‐Harjula

    Rehabilitation, South Karelia Social and Health Care District Eksote, Lappeenranta, Finland

  • Jos H Verbeek

    Cochrane Work Review Group, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, TYÖTERVEYSLAITOS, Finland

  • Sharea Ijaz

    NIHR CLAHRC West at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

  • Veerle Hermans

    Faculty of Psychology & Educational Sciences, Faculty of Medicine & Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

  • Zeljko Pedisic

    Institute for Health and Sport (IHES), Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia

Contributions of authors

Jos Verbeek, Sharea Ijaz, and Nipun Shrestha conceptualised the review.

Nipun Shrestha took the lead in writing the protocol.

Kaisa Neuvonen (Information Specialist, Cochrane Work Group) and Nipun Shrestha designed the systematic search strategies.

Nipun Shrestha and Katriina Kukkonen‐Harjula conducted the study selection.

Nipun Shrestha, Suresh Kumar, Chukwudi Nwankwo, Veerle Hermans, and Soumyadeep Bhaumik did the data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment for the previous versions.

Nipun Shrestha, Veerle Hermans, and Sharea Ijaz did the data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment for the current update.

Nipun Shrestha, Jos Verbeek, and Zeljko Pedisic conducted the data analysis.

Nipun Shrestha wrote the manuscript collaborating with Jos Verbeek, Katriina Kukkonen‐Harjula, Sharea Ijaz, Veerle Hermans, and Zeljko Pedisic.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Cochrane Work Review Group, Finland.

    Nipun Shrestha attended a three‐month internship to learn about Cochrane systematic review methodology.

External sources

  • NIHR CLAHRC West, UK.

    S Ijaz's time for this update was supported by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West (CLAHRC West) at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust.

  • Victoria University, Australia.

    Nipun Shrestha has received financial support through a VU Research Scholarship 2016 from Victoria University.

Declarations of interest

Nipun Shrestha: None known.

Jos Verbeek: I am employed by the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health to co‐ordinate the Cochrane Work Group.

Sharea Ijaz: None known.

Katriina T Kukkonen‐Harjula: None known.

Veerle Hermans: None known.

Zeljko Pedisic: None known.

Acknowledgements

We thank Jani Ruotsalainen, Managing Editor of the Cochrane Work Group, for providing administrative and logistical support for the conduct of the current review; and Kaisa Neuvonen, Information Specialist of the Cochrane Work Group, for developing the search strategies; and Heikki Laitinen for executing the search strategies for this current update.

We would also like to thank the Cochrane Work Group's Editors, Esa‐Pekka Takala and Anneli Ojajärvi; and external peer referees, Kimi Sawada, Kristel King, Rintaro Mori and Hidde van der Ploeg, for their comments. We thank Joey Kwong, Elizabeth Royle, Jessica Sharp and Jani Ruotsalainen for copy editing the text.

We also wish to thank Suresh Kumar, Chukwudi P Nwankwo and Soumyadeep Bhaumik for their contribution to the previous version of this review.

Sharea Ijaz's time is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West (CLAHRC West) at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust.

This review update is a part of the PhD project of the first author, Nipun Shrestha, supervised by Professor Alexandra Parker, Professor Stuart JH Biddle, and Dr Zeljko Pedisic (principal supervisor).

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2018 Dec 17

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work

Review

Nipun Shrestha, Katriina T Kukkonen‐Harjula, Jos H Verbeek, Sharea Ijaz, Veerle Hermans, Zeljko Pedisic

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010912.pub5

2018 Jun 20

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work

Review

Nipun Shrestha, Katriina T Kukkonen‐Harjula, Jos H Verbeek, Sharea Ijaz, Veerle Hermans, Zeljko Pedisic

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010912.pub4

2016 Mar 17

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work

Review

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

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010912.pub3

2015 Jan 26

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work

Review

Nipun Shrestha, Sharea Ijaz, Katriina T Kukkonen‐Harjula, Suresh Kumar, Chukwudi P Nwankwo

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010912.pub2

2014 Jan 10

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work

Protocol

Nipun Shrestha, Sharea Ijaz, Katriina T Kukkonen‐Harjula, Suresh Kumar, Chukwudi P Nwankwo

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010912

Differences between protocol and review

We added time spent in prolonged sitting bouts (e.g. 30 minutes or more) and number of such bouts, total time spent sitting, including sitting at and outside work, time spent standing and stepping at work as new outcomes in the review. We added the number and duration of prolonged sitting bouts as outcomes because research has suggested that breaking up sitting time may be beneficial to health (Dunstan 2011). We added the total time spent sitting, including sitting at and outside work, as an outcome because reducing occupational sitting time may lead to an increase of time spent sitting in non‐occupational domains. The possibility of such compensatory effects has been described in previous papers (Gomersall 2013; Pedišić 2017). We added the amounts of time spent standing and stepping at work as outcomes because the amount of time in a 24‐hour day is fixed and every reduction of time spent sitting has to necessarily result in a proportional increase of time spent in one or more other time‐use components (Pedišić 2017). From the public health perspective it may be important to know whether time spent sitting is replaced with quiet standing, physical activity or some other movement or non‐movement related behaviour.

In the protocol we stated that in cases where we would include more than one comparison from a trial with multiple arms in the same meta‐analysis, we would halve the numbers of control group participants to prevent them from being included twice, however this does not work for the inverse variance input method. One study, Neuhaus 2014a, reported only the results from ANCOVA and could not provide us with the raw data. For this trial we modelled the means and standard deviations from the intervention and the control group in Review Manager as closely to the real data as possible to achieve the same MD and standard error. Then we halved the number of participants in the control group and entered the resulting standard errors into Review Manager.

We judged studies to be at low risk of selective outcome reporting if the final publications of the trial reported what had been planned and registered in international databases (trial registries), such as ClinicalTrials.gov, Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR.org.au), Netherland’s Trial Registry (NTR). We judged the studies that were not registered in trial registries as being at low risk for selective outcome reporting if they reported all the outcomes mentioned in the methods section.

Initially, we planned to pool interventions that were categorised under broad headings like physical changes in workplace environment, workplace policy changes and information and counselling, but later we found that the interventions were quite different from one another and decided not to combine them under these broad headings. We also added a new category consisting of approaches that used multiple types of interventions at the same time. Due to the large number of outcomes it was not practical to incorporate a GRADE rating of the quality of the evidence of every single result. Hence we report time spent sitting at work and time spent in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more for short‐term follow‐up in the 'Summary of findings' table. Where studies reporting effects at short‐term follow‐up for the above‐mentioned outcomes were not available, we present medium‐term follow‐up. We only report the most relevant comparisons.

We also calculated a prediction interval for the outcome 'sitting time at work' for interventions comparing the effectiveness of sit‐stand desks and sit‐desks.

Keywords

MeSH

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

PRISMA study flow diagram
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

PRISMA study flow diagram

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, outcome: 1.1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work: short‐term follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, outcome: 1.1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work: short‐term follow‐up.

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short‐term ‐ sensitivity analysis.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short‐term ‐ sensitivity analysis.

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 3 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work. follow‐up medium‐term (CBA).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 3 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work. follow‐up medium‐term (CBA).

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 4 Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term (CBA).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 4 Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term (CBA).

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 5 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 5 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 6 Mean difference in time spent standing at work, follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 6 Mean difference in time spent standing at work, follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 7 Mean difference in time spent standing at work, follow‐up short‐term (RCT only).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 7 Mean difference in time spent standing at work, follow‐up short‐term (RCT only).

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 8 Mean difference in time spent stepping at work follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 8 Mean difference in time spent stepping at work follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 9 Mean difference in time spent standng at work, follow‐up medium‐term (CBA).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 9 Mean difference in time spent standng at work, follow‐up medium‐term (CBA).

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 10 Work performance (1‐10 scale), follow‐up short‐term (CBA).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 10 Work performance (1‐10 scale), follow‐up short‐term (CBA).

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 11 Proportion with ≥ 1 sick days in the last three months (CBA).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 11 Proportion with ≥ 1 sick days in the last three months (CBA).

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 12 Proportion with ≥ 1 sick days in the last month (CBA).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 12 Proportion with ≥ 1 sick days in the last month (CBA).

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 13 Mean difference in musculoskeletal symptoms, follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 13 Mean difference in musculoskeletal symptoms, follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 14 Mean difference in musculoskeletal symptoms, follow‐up Medium‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk, Outcome 14 Mean difference in musculoskeletal symptoms, follow‐up Medium‐term.

Comparison 2 Standing desk versus sit‐stand desk, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Standing desk versus sit‐stand desk, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 2 Standing desk versus sit‐stand desk, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up medium‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Standing desk versus sit‐stand desk, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up medium‐term.

Comparison 3 Active workstation versus sit desk, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Active workstation versus sit desk, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 3 Active workstation versus sit desk, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time spent in inactive sitting at work, follow‐up medium term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Active workstation versus sit desk, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time spent in inactive sitting at work, follow‐up medium term.

Comparison 4 Walking strategies versus no intervention, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Walking strategies versus no intervention, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short term.

Comparison 4 Walking strategies versus no intervention, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up medium‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Walking strategies versus no intervention, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up medium‐term.

Comparison 4 Walking strategies versus no intervention, Outcome 3 Percentage of lost work productivity (WLQ Index Score) follow‐up medium‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Walking strategies versus no intervention, Outcome 3 Percentage of lost work productivity (WLQ Index Score) follow‐up medium‐term.

Comparison 5 Short break versus long break, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Short break versus long break, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 6 Information, feedback and/or reminder versus information only or no intervention, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Information, feedback and/or reminder versus information only or no intervention, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short term.

Comparison 6 Information, feedback and/or reminder versus information only or no intervention, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up medium‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 Information, feedback and/or reminder versus information only or no intervention, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up medium‐term.

Comparison 6 Information, feedback and/or reminder versus information only or no intervention, Outcome 3 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 Information, feedback and/or reminder versus information only or no intervention, Outcome 3 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 6 Information, feedback and/or reminder versus information only or no intervention, Outcome 4 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up medium term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6 Information, feedback and/or reminder versus information only or no intervention, Outcome 4 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up medium term.

Comparison 6 Information, feedback and/or reminder versus information only or no intervention, Outcome 5 Mean difference in time spent standing at work follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.5

Comparison 6 Information, feedback and/or reminder versus information only or no intervention, Outcome 5 Mean difference in time spent standing at work follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 6 Information, feedback and/or reminder versus information only or no intervention, Outcome 6 Work engagement (0‐6 scale), follow‐up medium‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.6

Comparison 6 Information, feedback and/or reminder versus information only or no intervention, Outcome 6 Work engagement (0‐6 scale), follow‐up medium‐term.

Comparison 7 Prompts plus information versus information alone, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Prompts plus information versus information alone, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short term.

Comparison 7 Prompts plus information versus information alone, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up medium‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 Prompts plus information versus information alone, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up medium‐term.

Comparison 7 Prompts plus information versus information alone, Outcome 3 Mean difference in number of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 Prompts plus information versus information alone, Outcome 3 Mean difference in number of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 7 Prompts plus information versus information alone, Outcome 4 Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7 Prompts plus information versus information alone, Outcome 4 Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 7 Prompts plus information versus information alone, Outcome 5 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.5

Comparison 7 Prompts plus information versus information alone, Outcome 5 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 7 Prompts plus information versus information alone, Outcome 6 Mean difference in time spent standing at work follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.6

Comparison 7 Prompts plus information versus information alone, Outcome 6 Mean difference in time spent standing at work follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 7 Prompts plus information versus information alone, Outcome 7 Mean difference in energy expenditure, follow‐up medium‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.7

Comparison 7 Prompts plus information versus information alone, Outcome 7 Mean difference in energy expenditure, follow‐up medium‐term.

Comparison 8 Computer prompts to step versus computer prompts to stand, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 Computer prompts to step versus computer prompts to stand, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 8 Computer prompts to step versus computer prompts to stand, Outcome 2 Mean difference in number of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.2

Comparison 8 Computer prompts to step versus computer prompts to stand, Outcome 2 Mean difference in number of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 8 Computer prompts to step versus computer prompts to stand, Outcome 3 Mean difference in time spent standing at work, follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.3

Comparison 8 Computer prompts to step versus computer prompts to stand, Outcome 3 Mean difference in time spent standing at work, follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 8 Computer prompts to step versus computer prompts to stand, Outcome 4 Mean difference in time spent stepping at work, follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.4

Comparison 8 Computer prompts to step versus computer prompts to stand, Outcome 4 Mean difference in time spent stepping at work, follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 9 High personalised or contextualised information versus less personalised or contextualised information, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.1

Comparison 9 High personalised or contextualised information versus less personalised or contextualised information, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 10 Mindfulness training versus no intervention, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up medium‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.1

Comparison 10 Mindfulness training versus no intervention, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up medium‐term.

Comparison 10 Mindfulness training versus no intervention, Outcome 2 Work engagement (0‐6 scale), follow‐up medium‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.2

Comparison 10 Mindfulness training versus no intervention, Outcome 2 Work engagement (0‐6 scale), follow‐up medium‐term.

Comparison 11 Activity tracker combined with organisational support versus organisational support only, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.1

Comparison 11 Activity tracker combined with organisational support versus organisational support only, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 11 Activity tracker combined with organisational support versus organisational support only, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up medium‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.2

Comparison 11 Activity tracker combined with organisational support versus organisational support only, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up medium‐term.

Comparison 11 Activity tracker combined with organisational support versus organisational support only, Outcome 3 Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.3

Comparison 11 Activity tracker combined with organisational support versus organisational support only, Outcome 3 Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 11 Activity tracker combined with organisational support versus organisational support only, Outcome 4 Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up medium‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.4

Comparison 11 Activity tracker combined with organisational support versus organisational support only, Outcome 4 Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up medium‐term.

Comparison 11 Activity tracker combined with organisational support versus organisational support only, Outcome 5 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.5

Comparison 11 Activity tracker combined with organisational support versus organisational support only, Outcome 5 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 11 Activity tracker combined with organisational support versus organisational support only, Outcome 6 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up medium‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.6

Comparison 11 Activity tracker combined with organisational support versus organisational support only, Outcome 6 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up medium‐term.

Comparison 11 Activity tracker combined with organisational support versus organisational support only, Outcome 7 Mean difference in time spent standing at work follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.7

Comparison 11 Activity tracker combined with organisational support versus organisational support only, Outcome 7 Mean difference in time spent standing at work follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 11 Activity tracker combined with organisational support versus organisational support only, Outcome 8 Mean difference in time spent stepping at work, follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.8

Comparison 11 Activity tracker combined with organisational support versus organisational support only, Outcome 8 Mean difference in time spent stepping at work, follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 11 Activity tracker combined with organisational support versus organisational support only, Outcome 9 Mean difference in time spent standing at work follow‐up medium‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.9

Comparison 11 Activity tracker combined with organisational support versus organisational support only, Outcome 9 Mean difference in time spent standing at work follow‐up medium‐term.

Comparison 11 Activity tracker combined with organisational support versus organisational support only, Outcome 10 Mean difference in time spent stepping at work, follow‐up medium‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 11.10

Comparison 11 Activity tracker combined with organisational support versus organisational support only, Outcome 10 Mean difference in time spent stepping at work, follow‐up medium‐term.

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.1

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up medium‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.2

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up medium‐term.

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 3 Mean difference in number of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.3

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 3 Mean difference in number of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 4 Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.4

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 4 Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 5 Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up medium‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.5

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 5 Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up medium‐term.

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 6 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.6

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 6 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 7 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up medium‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.7

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 7 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up medium‐term.

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 8 Mean difference in time spent standing at work follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.8

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 8 Mean difference in time spent standing at work follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 9 Mean difference in time spent stepping at work follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.9

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 9 Mean difference in time spent stepping at work follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 10 Mean difference in time spent standing at work follow‐up medium‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.10

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 10 Mean difference in time spent standing at work follow‐up medium‐term.

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 11 Mean difference in time spent stepping at work follow‐up medium‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.11

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 11 Mean difference in time spent stepping at work follow‐up medium‐term.

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 12 Work engagement (0‐6 scale), follow‐up short‐term.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.12

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 12 Work engagement (0‐6 scale), follow‐up short‐term.

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 13 Mean difference in musculoskeletal symptoms all sites (score 0–6) at short‐term follow‐up.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 12.13

Comparison 12 Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention, Outcome 13 Mean difference in musculoskeletal symptoms all sites (score 0–6) at short‐term follow‐up.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Alternative desks and workstations compared to sit‐desks for reducing sitting at work

Alternative desks and workstations compared to sit‐desks for reducing sitting at work

Patient or population: employees who sit at work
Setting: workplace
Intervention: alternative desks and workstations
Comparison: sit‐desks

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with sit‐desk

Risk with changes in desk

Comparison: sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk

Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, short‐term follow‐up (up to 3 months)

The mean difference in time spent sitting at work (short‐term follow‐up) was 364 minutes

MD 100 minutes lower
(116 lower to 84 lower)

323
(10 studies: 4 RCTs, 2 cross‐over RCTs, 4 CBAs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1 2

Subgroup analysis showed no difference in effect between sit‐stand desks used alone or in combination with information and counselling. Restricting the analysis to RCTs only did not show any difference in effect either.

Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, short‐term follow‐up

The mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more (short‐term follow‐up) was 167 minutes

MD 53 minutes lower
(79 lower to 26 lower)

74
(2 CBAs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 2 3

Comparison: treadmill desk combined with counselling versus sit‐desk

Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, short‐term follow‐up (up to 3 months)

The mean difference in time spent sitting at work (short‐term follow‐up) was 342 minutes

MD 29 minutes lower
(55 lower to 2 lower)

31
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 2 4

Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, short‐term follow‐up — not reported

Comparison: cycling desk + information and counselling versus sit‐desk + information and counselling

Mean difference in time spent in inactive sitting at work, medium‐term follow‐up (from 3 to 12 months)

The mean difference in time spent in inactive sitting at work (medium‐term follow‐up) was 413 minutes

MD 12 minutes lower
(24 lower to 1 higher)

54
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 2 5

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio; RCT: randomised controlled trial CBA: controlled before‐and‐after study; MD: mean difference

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1 Of the six RCTs, five were at high risk of bias. The non‐randomised controlled before‐and‐after study/studies were also at high risk of bias; downgraded one level

2 Imprecision with wide confidence intervals, small sample size; downgraded one level

3 Unconcealed allocation, unblinded outcome assessment and attrition bias; downgraded two levels

4 Unblinded outcome assessment; downgraded one level

5 Unblinded outcome assessment and attrition bias; downgraded one level

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Alternative desks and workstations compared to sit‐desks for reducing sitting at work
Summary of findings 2. Workplace policy changes compared to no intervention or alternate intervention for reducing sitting at work

Workplace policy changes compared to no intervention for reducing sitting at work

Patient or population: employees who sit at work
Setting: workplace
Intervention: policy changes
Comparison: no intervention

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with no intervention

Risk with Policy changes

Comparision: walking strategies versus no intervention

Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, short‐term follow‐up

The mean difference in time spent sitting at work (short‐term follow‐up) was 344 minutes

MD 15 minutes lower
(50 lower to 19 higher)

179
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1 2

Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, short‐term follow‐up — not reported

Comparision: short break versus long break

Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, short‐term follow‐up

The mean difference in time spent sitting at work (short term follow‐up) was 131 minutes

MD 40 minutes lower
(66 lower to 15 lower)

49
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 2 3

Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, short‐term follow‐up — not reported

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio; RCT: randomised controlled trial; MD: mean difference

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1 Risk of bias high due to unblinded outcome assessment and lack of allocation concealment; downgraded with one level

2 Imprecision with wide confidence intervals; downgraded with one level

3 Unconcealed allocation and attrition bias

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. Workplace policy changes compared to no intervention or alternate intervention for reducing sitting at work
Summary of findings 3. Information, feedback, and/or counselling compared to information only or no intervention for reducing sitting at work

Information and counselling compared to information only or no intervention for reducing sitting at work

Patient or population: employees who sit at work
Setting: workplace
Intervention: information and counselling
Comparison: information only or no intervention

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with information only or no intervention

Risk with Information and counselling

Information, feedback and counselling versus no intervention

Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, short‐term follow‐up — information and feedback versus no intervention

The mean difference in time spent sitting at work (short‐term follow‐up) was 550 minutes

MD 19 minutes lower
(57 lower to 19 higher)

63
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1 2

Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, medium‐term follow‐up — counselling versus no intervention

The mean difference in time spent sitting at work (medium‐term follow‐up) was 462 minutes

MD 28 minutes lower
(51 lower to 5 lower)

747
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1 3

Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, short‐term follow‐up ‐ not reported

Prompts combined with information versus information alone

Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, short‐term follow‐up

The mean difference in time spent sitting at work (short‐term follow‐up) was 349 minutes

MD 10 minutes lower
(45 lower to 24 higher)

75
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1 2

Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, short‐term follow‐up

The mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more (short‐term follow‐up) was 286 minutes

MD 74 minutes lower
(124 lower to 24 lower)

28
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1 4

Mindfulness training versus no intervention

Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, medium‐term follow‐up

The mean difference in time spent sitting at work (medium‐term follow‐up) was 316 minutes

MD 23 minutes lower
(63 lower to 17 higher)

257
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1 6

Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, medium‐term follow‐up — not reported

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio; RCT: randomised controlled trial; MD: mean difference

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1 Imprecision with wide confidence intervals, small sample size; downgraded with one level

2 Unblinded outcome assessment and attrition bas

3 Risk of bias, allocation not concealed, lack of blinding, high attrition rate; downgraded with one level

4 Lack of blinding of participants and selective reporting

5 Lack of blinding of participants and attrition bias

6 Risk of bias high due to unconcealed allocation and unblinded outcome assessment; downgraded with one level

7 Lack of blinding of participants

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 3. Information, feedback, and/or counselling compared to information only or no intervention for reducing sitting at work
Summary of findings 4. Multi‐component intervention compared to no intervention for reducing sitting at work

Multi‐component intervention compared to no intervention for reducing sitting at work

Patient or population: employees who sit at work
Setting: workplace
Intervention: multi‐component intervention
Comparison: no intervention

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with no intervention

Risk with Multi‐component intervention

Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, short‐term follow‐up

See comment

see comment

573
(3 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1 2 3

Not pooled

Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, short‐term follow‐up

See comment

See comment

518
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1 2 3

Not pooled

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio; RCT: randomised controlled trial

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1 Unconcealed allocation and unblinded outcome assessment

2 Imprecision with wide confidence interval, small sample size

3 Not pooled due to high heterogeneity

3 Small sample size

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 4. Multi‐component intervention compared to no intervention for reducing sitting at work
Comparison 1. Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

10

323

Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

‐100.16 [‐115.83, ‐84.48]

1.1 Sit‐stand desk only

5

145

Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

‐96.72 [‐126.05, ‐67.39]

1.2 Sit‐stand desk + information and counselling

6

178

Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

‐104.38 [‐122.81, ‐85.96]

2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short‐term ‐ sensitivity analysis Show forest plot

10

323

Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

‐100.16 [‐115.83, ‐84.48]

2.1 Randomised control trials

4

132

Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

‐105.19 [‐128.13, ‐82.24]

2.2 Cross‐over RCT

2

70

Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

‐99.11 [‐112.82, ‐85.41]

2.3 Control before after studies

4

121

Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

‐92.80 [‐133.13, ‐52.47]

3 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work. follow‐up medium‐term (CBA) Show forest plot

2

60

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐57.08 [‐98.76, ‐15.41]

4 Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term (CBA) Show forest plot

2

74

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐52.57 [‐78.79, ‐26.35]

4.1 Sit‐stand desk only

1

20

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐13.00 [‐70.80, 40.80]

4.2 Sit‐stand desk + information and counselling

2

54

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐63.22 [‐92.92, ‐33.51]

5 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

2

56

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐81.67 [‐123.99, ‐39.36]

6 Mean difference in time spent standing at work, follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

9

295

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

89.38 [76.44, 102.32]

6.1 Sit‐stand desk only

4

117

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

75.78 [57.56, 94.01]

6.2 Sit‐stand desk + information and counselling

6

178

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

103.20 [84.83, 121.58]

7 Mean difference in time spent standing at work, follow‐up short‐term (RCT only) Show forest plot

4

132

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

98.65 [74.94, 122.36]

8 Mean difference in time spent stepping at work follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

8

270

Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

‐0.52 [‐3.88, 2.85]

9 Mean difference in time spent standng at work, follow‐up medium‐term (CBA) Show forest plot

2

60

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

53.36 [16.59, 90.14]

10 Work performance (1‐10 scale), follow‐up short‐term (CBA) Show forest plot

3

109

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [‐0.10, 0.79]

10.1 Sit‐stand desk only

2

52

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.00, 1.63]

10.2 Sit‐stand desk + information and counselling

2

57

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.15 [‐0.38, 0.68]

11 Proportion with ≥ 1 sick days in the last three months (CBA) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

12 Proportion with ≥ 1 sick days in the last month (CBA) Show forest plot

2

78

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.49, 1.21]

12.1 Sit‐stand desk only

1

20

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.42, 2.13]

12.2 Sit‐stand desk + information and counselling

2

58

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.41, 1.24]

13 Mean difference in musculoskeletal symptoms, follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

46

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.51 [‐1.03, ‐0.00]

14 Mean difference in musculoskeletal symptoms, follow‐up Medium‐term Show forest plot

1

45

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.54 [‐0.89, ‐0.19]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Sit‐stand desk with or without information and counselling versus sit‐desk
Comparison 2. Standing desk versus sit‐stand desk

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up medium‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Standing desk versus sit‐stand desk
Comparison 3. Active workstation versus sit desk

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Treadmill desk plus counselling versus sit desk

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Mean difference in time spent in inactive sitting at work, follow‐up medium term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Cycling desk + information and counselling versus information and counselling only

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Active workstation versus sit desk
Comparison 4. Walking strategies versus no intervention

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short term Show forest plot

1

179

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐15.49 [‐49.65, 18.67]

1.1 Route versus no intervention

1

90

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐16.0 [‐64.98, 32.98]

1.2 Incidental versus no intervention

1

89

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐15.0 [‐62.66, 32.66]

2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up medium‐term Show forest plot

1

264

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐16.50 [‐60.55, 27.55]

3 Percentage of lost work productivity (WLQ Index Score) follow‐up medium‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Walking strategies versus no intervention
Comparison 5. Short break versus long break

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. Short break versus long break
Comparison 6. Information, feedback and/or reminder versus information only or no intervention

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short term Show forest plot

2

63

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐19.23 [‐57.05, 18.58]

1.1 Information and feedback versus no intervention

2

63

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐19.23 [‐57.05, 18.58]

2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up medium‐term Show forest plot

2

747

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐28.38 [‐51.49, ‐5.26]

2.1 Counselling versus no intervention

2

747

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐28.38 [‐51.49, ‐5.26]

3 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Information and feedback versus no intervention

1

37

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐16.40 [‐96.85, 64.06]

4 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up medium term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Counselling versus no intervention

1

416

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐20.0 [‐85.00, 45.00]

5 Mean difference in time spent standing at work follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Information and feedback

1

93

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

10.24 [‐17.17, 37.65]

6 Work engagement (0‐6 scale), follow‐up medium‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 Counseling versus no intervention

1

224

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.1 [‐0.10, 0.30]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 6. Information, feedback and/or reminder versus information only or no intervention
Comparison 7. Prompts plus information versus information alone

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short term Show forest plot

2

75

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐10.48 [‐44.88, 23.92]

2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up medium‐term Show forest plot

1

34

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐54.92 [‐95.82, ‐14.02]

3 Mean difference in number of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

28

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐73.92 [‐123.78, ‐24.06]

5 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6 Mean difference in time spent standing at work follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7 Mean difference in energy expenditure, follow‐up medium‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 7. Prompts plus information versus information alone
Comparison 8. Computer prompts to step versus computer prompts to stand

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Mean difference in number of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Mean difference in time spent standing at work, follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Mean difference in time spent stepping at work, follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 8. Computer prompts to step versus computer prompts to stand
Comparison 9. High personalised or contextualised information versus less personalised or contextualised information

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 9. High personalised or contextualised information versus less personalised or contextualised information
Comparison 10. Mindfulness training versus no intervention

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up medium‐term Show forest plot

1

257

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐22.69 [‐62.55, 17.17]

2 Work engagement (0‐6 scale), follow‐up medium‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 10. Mindfulness training versus no intervention
Comparison 11. Activity tracker combined with organisational support versus organisational support only

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up medium‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up medium‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up medium‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7 Mean difference in time spent standing at work follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8 Mean difference in time spent stepping at work, follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9 Mean difference in time spent standing at work follow‐up medium‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10 Mean difference in time spent stepping at work, follow‐up medium‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 11. Activity tracker combined with organisational support versus organisational support only
Comparison 12. Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Mean difference in time spent sitting at work, follow‐up medium‐term Show forest plot

2

562

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐45.60 [‐62.54, ‐28.66]

3 Mean difference in number of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5 Mean difference in time in sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more, follow‐up medium‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

2

227

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐72.73 [‐91.87, ‐53.59]

7 Mean difference in total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), follow‐up medium‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8 Mean difference in time spent standing at work follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9 Mean difference in time spent stepping at work follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10 Mean difference in time spent standing at work follow‐up medium‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

11 Mean difference in time spent stepping at work follow‐up medium‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

12 Work engagement (0‐6 scale), follow‐up short‐term Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐0.14, 0.14]

12.1 Environmental interventions only

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.1 [‐0.10, 0.30]

12.2 Environmental interventions + counselling

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.1 [‐0.30, 0.10]

13 Mean difference in musculoskeletal symptoms all sites (score 0–6) at short‐term follow‐up Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 12. Multi‐component intervention versus no intervention