Background: Prolonged sitting time has been associated with adverse health outcomes. Interventions at work may contribute to reduced sitting. The objective was to test if a multicomponent work-based intervention can reduce sitting time and the number of prolonged sitting periods (> 30 min), increase the number of sit-to-stand transitions and decrease waist circumference and body fat percentage among office workers. Primary outcomes were: change in sitting time, prolonged sitting periods and sit-to-stand transitions at follow-up 1 month later. Methods: At four workplaces, 19 offices (317 workers in total) were cluster randomized for intervention or control. The intervention included the appointment of local ambassadors, management support, environmental changes, a lecture and a workshop. Sitting time was measured using an ActiGraph GT3X+ fixed on the thigh. Data were processed using Acti4 software providing data on time spent sitting, standing and doing other activities. Control participants were instructed to behave as usual. Follow-up measurements were obtained after 1 and 3 months. Results: At 1 and 3 months, total sitting time was 71 (P < 0.001) and 48 min (P < 0.001) lower per 8-h workday in the intervention group compared with the control group. At 1 month, the number of prolonged sitting periods was lower (-0.79/8-h workday, P < 0.001) and sit-to-stand transitions were higher (+14%/sitting hour, P = 0.001) in the intervention compared with the control group. After 3 months, trends persisted. The body fat percentage was lower by 0.61 percentage points (P = 0.011) in the intervention group compared with the control group after 3 months. Conclusions: The multicomponent workplace-based intervention was effective in reducing sitting time, prolonged sitting periods and body fat percentage, and in increasing the number of sit-to-stand transitions.

Objectives Prolonged sitting at work has been found to increase risk for musculoskeletal pain. The office-based intervention "Take a Stand!" was effective in reducing sitting time at work. We aimed to study the effect of the intervention on a secondary outcome: musculoskeletal pain. Methods Take a Stand! included 19 offices (317 workers) at four workplaces cluster randomized to intervention or control. The multicomponent intervention lasted three months and included management support, environmental changes, and local adaptation. Control participants behaved as usual. Musculoskeletal pain was measured by self-report questionnaire assessing pain in neck-shoulders, back and extremities in three categories at baseline, and one and three months follow-up. Results At one month, there was no difference in odds ratio (OR) for pain in neck-shoulders between the two groups. However, after three months, the OR was 0.52 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.30–0.92] for pain in neck-shoulders in the intervention compared to the control group. No differences were found between the intervention and control group for pain in back and extremities over the three months. For total pain score a slight reduction was found in the intervention compared to the control group at one and three months [-0.13 (95% CI -0.23– -0.03) and -0.17 (95% CI -0.32– -0.01)]. Conclusions The secondary analyses showed that the office-based intervention Take a Stand! reduced neck-shoulder pain after three months and total pain score after one and three months among office workers, but not neck-shoulder pain after one month or pain in the back and extremities.

Women in low-income countries are generally considered to have a high physical workload which is sustained during pregnancy. Although most previous studies have been based on questionnaires a recent meta-analysis of doubly labeled water data has raised questions about the actual amount of physical activity performed. In this study we report objectively assessed levels of physical activity, cardiorespiratory fitness and muscular fitness among pregnant urban Ethiopian women, and their association with demographic characteristics and anthropometric measures.

Background: We hypothesized that women with congenital heart disease ( CHD ) are at increased risk of giving birth preterm, including very and moderately preterm and giving birth to infants small for gestational age ( SGA ). We aimed to investigate this in a nation‐wide study with focus on the potential modifying effect of socioeconomic status. Methods and Results: We performed a cohort study using Danish nation‐wide registers between 1997 and 2014. The exposure, maternal CHD , was subdivided into simple, moderate and complex based on severity of defects. Outcomes were preterm birth and SGA . Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios ( HR ). A total of 933 149 births including 3745 births among women with CHD were studied. The risk of giving birth preterm and SGA were higher among women with CHD as compared with women without CHD ; for example, adjusted hazard ratios of preterm birth according to severity: simple 1.33 (95% CI , 1.11–1.59), moderate 1.45 (95% CI , 1.14–1.83) and complex 3.26 (95% CI , 2.41–4.40). Same pattern was seen for very and moderately preterm births and SGA . Education was a strong predictor of both preterm birth and SGA but did not modify the association between maternal congenital heart disease and preterm birth ( P =0.38) or SGA ( P =0.99). Conclusions: Women with CHD were at increased risk of preterm birth both, moderately and very preterm, as well as giving birth to infants SGA . Education was a strong predictor of both preterm birth and SGA but the association between CHD and risk of preterm birth and SGA was independent of educational level.

Background: Multicomponent workplace-based interventions aimed at reducing sitting time among office workers are becoming increasingly popular. ‘Take a Stand!’ was such an intervention, reducing sitting time by 71 min after 1 month and 48 min after 3 months. However, it is unclear how the implementation process of ‘Take a Stand!’ affected these results. The present study explored how individual factors and organizational context influenced implementation and effect in ‘Take a Stand!’Methods: This was a mixed-methods study, combining data from interviews, questionnaires and accelerometers. Directed content analysis was used for analysing interviews with participants, ambassadors and managers from the 10 intervention offices in the ‘Take a Stand!’ study. Categories for analysis were taken fromFramework for Evaluating Organizational-level Interventions. Interview data were combined with questionnaire and activity data, and multilevel analysis was undertaken to assess how changes in sitting time varied depending on the assessed factors. In addition, interview data were used to underpin results from the multilevel analysis.Results: Concurrent institutional changes were found to be a barrier for the intervention by ambassadors, while participants and managers did not find it to be an issue. Management support was consistently highlighted as very important. Participants evaluated ambassadors as being generally adequately active but also, that the role had a greater potential.The motivational and social aspects of the intervention were considered important for the effect. This was supported by regression analyses, which showed that a strong desire to change sitting time habits, strong motivation towards the project, and a high sense of collective engagement were associated to less sitting time at 3 months of about 30 min/8 h working day compared to participants with low scores. Influence from other participants (e.g. seeing others raise their tables) and the use of humour were continuously highlighted by participants as positive for implementation. Finally, the intervention was found to influence the social climate at the workplace positively.Conclusion: Individual motivation was related to the sitting time effect of ‘Take a Stand!’, but the organizational culture was relevant both to the implementation and effect within the office community. The organizational culture included among others to ensure general participation, to uphold management and peer-support, and maintain a positive environment during the intervention period.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov,NCT01996176. Prospectively registered 21 November 2013.