Impact of Sit-to-Stand and Treadmill Desks on Patterns of Daily Waking Physical Behaviors Among Overweight and Obese Seated Office Workers: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.
Impact of Sit-to-Stand and Treadmill Desks on Patterns of Daily Waking Physical Behaviors Among Overweight and Obese Seated Office Workers: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.
复制标题
DOI：
10.2196/43018
复制
发表时间：
2023-05-16
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
John, Dinesh
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Arguello, Diego;Cloutier, Gregory;Thorndike, Anne N.;Sceppa, Carmen Castaneda;Griffith, John;John, Dinesh
关键词：
坐立两用办公桌和跑步机办公桌可能有助于久坐的办公室工作人员达到“多动少坐”的身体活动指南，但人们对它们改变身体行为积累模式的长期影响知之甚少。本研究采用意向治疗设计，对超重和肥胖的办公室工作人员进行为期12个月的多组分干预，探讨了坐立两用和跑步机办公桌对身体行为累积模式的影响。总共有66名办公室工作人员被随机分组到坐姿办公桌对照组（n=21，32%; 8个集群）、坐立办公桌组（n=23，35%; 9个集群）或跑步机办公桌组（n=22，33%; 7个集群）。参与者在基线、3个月随访（M3）、6个月随访（M6）和12个月随访（M12）时佩戴activePAL（PAL Technologies Ltd）加速计7天，并定期收到有关其身体行为的反馈。身体行为模式的分析包括久坐、站立和踏步发作的总天数和工作日次数，这些发作被分类为持续时间范围为1至60分钟和>60分钟，以及通常的久坐、站立和踏步发作持续时间。干预趋势进行了分析，使用随机截距混合线性模型占重复测量和聚类效应。跑步机办公桌组更倾向于长时间的久坐（>60分钟），而坐立办公桌组则更倾向于短时间的久坐（<20分钟）。因此，与对照组相比，从坐到站的办公桌使用者在短期内的久坐持续时间较短。（总天数ΔM3：−10.1分钟/回合，95%CI −17.9至−2.2; P= 0.01;工作日ΔM3：−20.3分钟/回合，95%CI −37.7至−2.9; P= 0.02），而跑步机办公桌使用者的长期久坐持续时间较长（总天数ΔM12：9.0 min/回合，95% CI 1.6-16.4; P= 0.02）。跑步机办公桌组更倾向于长时间站立（30-60分钟和>60分钟），而坐立办公桌组积累了更多的短时间站立（<20分钟）。因此，相对于对照组，跑步机办公桌用户短期内通常站立回合的持续时间更长（总天数ΔM3：6.9 min/回合，95% CI 2.5-11.4; P= 0.002;工作日ΔM3：8.9 min/回合，95% CI 2.1-15.7; P= 0.01），并维持这种长期（全天ΔM12：4.5分钟/回合，95% CI 0.7-8.4; P= 0.02;工作日ΔM12：5.8分钟/回合，95% CI 0.9-10.6; P= 0.02），而坐立办公桌使用者仅在长期内显示出这种趋势。（总天数ΔM12：4.2 min/回合，95% CI 0.1-8.3; P=.046）。跑步机办公桌组在不同持续时间段（5-50分钟）积累了更多的踏步次数，主要是在M3。因此，与对照组相比，跑步机办公桌使用者在短期内有更长的日常步行时间（工作日ΔM3：4.8分钟/回合，95% CI 1.3-8.3; P= 0.007）以及与坐站办公桌使用者相比的短期和长期研究（工作日ΔM3：4.7 min/回合，95% CI 1.6-7.8; P=.003;工作日ΔM12：3.0 min/回合，95% CI 0.1-5.9; P=.04）。坐立办公桌比跑步机办公桌表现出更有利的身体行为积累模式。未来的主动工作站试验应考虑促进更频繁的长期运动发作和劝阻长期静态姿势固定的策略。ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02376504; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02376504
Sit-to-stand and treadmill desks may help sedentary office workers meet the physical activity guideline to “move more and sit less,” but little is known about their long-term impact on altering the accumulation patterns of physical behaviors. This study explores the impact of sit-to-stand and treadmill desks on physical behavior accumulation patterns during a 12-month multicomponent intervention with an intent-to-treat design in overweight and obese seated office workers. In total, 66 office workers were cluster randomized into a seated desk control (n=21, 32%; 8 clusters), sit-to-stand desk (n=23, 35%; 9 clusters), or treadmill desk (n=22, 33%; 7 clusters) group. Participants wore an activPAL (PAL Technologies Ltd) accelerometer for 7 days at baseline, 3-month follow-up (M3), 6-month follow-up (M6), and 12-month follow-up (M12) and received periodic feedback on their physical behaviors. Analyses of physical behavior patterns included total day and workday number of sedentary, standing, and stepping bouts categorized into durations ranging from 1 to 60 and >60 minutes and usual sedentary, standing, and stepping bout durations. Intervention trends were analyzed using random-intercept mixed linear models accounting for repeated measures and clustering effects. The treadmill desk group favored prolonged sedentary bouts (>60 min), whereas the sit-to-stand desk group accrued more short-duration sedentary bouts (<20 min). Therefore, compared with controls, sit-to-stand desk users had shorter usual sedentary bout durations short-term (total day ΔM3: −10.1 min/bout, 95% CI −17.9 to −2.2; P=.01; workday ΔM3: −20.3 min/bout, 95% CI −37.7 to −2.9; P=.02), whereas treadmill desk users had longer usual sedentary bout durations long-term (total day ΔM12: 9.0 min/bout, 95% CI 1.6-16.4; P=.02). The treadmill desk group favored prolonged standing bouts (30-60 min and >60 min), whereas the sit-to-stand desk group accrued more short-duration standing bouts (<20 min). As such, relative to controls, treadmill desk users had longer usual standing bout durations short-term (total day ΔM3: 6.9 min/bout, 95% CI 2.5-11.4; P=.002; workday ΔM3: 8.9 min/bout, 95% CI 2.1-15.7; P=.01) and sustained this long-term (total day ΔM12: 4.5 min/bout, 95% CI 0.7-8.4; P=.02; workday ΔM12: 5.8 min/bout, 95% CI 0.9-10.6; P=.02), whereas sit-to-stand desk users showed this trend only in the long-term (total day ΔM12: 4.2 min/bout, 95% CI 0.1-8.3; P=.046). The treadmill desk group accumulated more stepping bouts across various bins of duration (5-50 min), primarily at M3. Thus, treadmill desk users had longer usual stepping bout durations in the short-term compared with controls (workday ΔM3: 4.8 min/bout, 95% CI 1.3-8.3; P=.007) and in the short- and long-term compared with sit-to-stand desk users (workday ΔM3: 4.7 min/bout, 95% CI 1.6-7.8; P=.003; workday ΔM12: 3.0 min/bout, 95% CI 0.1-5.9; P=.04). Sit-to-stand desks exerted potentially more favorable physical behavior accumulation patterns than treadmill desks. Future active workstation trials should consider strategies to promote more frequent long-term movement bouts and dissuade prolonged static postural fixity. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02376504; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02376504
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
39.3
作者：
Healy, Genevieve N.;Matthews, Charles E.;Owen, Neville
通讯作者：
Owen, Neville
影响因子：
5.5
作者：
Boyer WR;Wolff-Hughes DL;Bassett DR;Churilla JR;Fitzhugh EC
通讯作者：
Fitzhugh EC
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
Carter, Sophie E.;Draijer, Richard;Hopkins, Nicola D.
通讯作者：
Hopkins, Nicola D.
影响因子：
5.5
作者：
Evenson, Kelly R.;Herring, Amy H.;Wen, Fang
通讯作者：
Wen, Fang
影响因子：
50
作者：
Bergman, Frida;Wahlstrom, Viktoria;Olsson, Tommy
通讯作者：
Olsson, Tommy