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.

Using self-reported surveys to monitor physical activity levels in the population require short items covering both time and intensity. The present study aims to 1) develop the Nordic Physical Activity Questionnaire-short from the original version of the NPAQ, 2) assess test-retest reliability and criterion validity of the NPAQ-short, and 3) test the NPAQ-short’s ability to monitor compliance with the WHO recommendations on physical activity. In addition, we aimed to compare open and closed-ended answering modes for the NPAQ-short. A sample of 122 participants were included. The NPAQ-short comprised of two questions on weekly moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and vigorous physical activity (VPA). It was filled in twice, two weeks apart, in open- and closed-ended versions. Physical activity was measured objectively by an Actiheart accelerometer worn 24 h/day seven consecutive days. Spearman’s rank correlation and Cohen’s kappa were used to assess correlations between the test and retest results, and between the objective and the self-reported measures. Valid data was available for 92 participants. Test-retest reliability showed Spearman’s rho = 0.82 for MVPA and 0.80 for VPA. For the open-ended questions, the correlations between self-reported and objectively measured physical activity levels were Spearman’s rho = 0.33 for MVPA and rho = 0.32 for VPA. For closed-ended questions, the kappa-coefficients were 0.17 for MVPA and 0.21 for VPA. When using objective and self-reported measures to monitor WHO’s physical activity recommendations, the kappa correlations were 0.42 for open-ended and 0.34 for closed-ended answering modes. The NPAQ-short was found to be sufficiently reliable and valid to monitor physical activity levels in the population when using both open and closed-ended questions. However, using open-ended questions seems to be a better answering mode for self-reported surveys monitoring WHO’s physical activity recommendations.

Accelerometers can obtain precise measurements of movements during the day. However, the individual activity pattern varies from day-to-day and there is limited evidence on measurement days needed to obtain sufficient reliability. The aim of this study was to examine variability in accelerometer derived data on sedentary behaviour and physical activity at work and in leisure-time during week days among Danish office employees. We included control participants (n = 135) from the Take a Stand! Intervention; a cluster randomized controlled trial conducted in 19 offices. Sitting time and physical activity were measured using an ActiGraph GT3X+ fixed on the thigh and data were processed using Acti4 software. Variability was examined for sitting time, standing time, steps and time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per day by multilevel mixed linear regression modelling. Results of this study showed that the number of days needed to obtain a reliability of 80% when measuring sitting time was 4.7 days for work and 5.5 days for leisure time. For physical activity at work, 4.0 days and 4.2 days were required to measure steps and MVPA, respectively. During leisure time, more monitoring time was needed to reliably estimate physical activity (6.8 days for steps and 5.8 days for MVPA). The number of measurement days needed to reliably estimate activity patterns was greater for leisure time than for work time. The domain specific variability is of great importance to researchers and health promotion workers planning to use objective measures of sedentary behaviour and physical activity. Clinical trials NCT01996176 .

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.

Active meetings (standing or walking) have the potential to reduce sitting time among office workers. The aim of the present study was to explore the feasibility and effectiveness of standing and walking meetings. The “Take a Stand!” study was a cluster-randomized trial, consisting of multiple components including the possibility of active meetings. Analyses were based on the 173 participants in the intervention group. Feasibility was evaluated by questionnaire and interview data from participants, ambassadors and leaders. Effectiveness was assessed as the change in objectively measured sitting time from baseline to 3 months follow-up. Regular standing meetings were implemented at all offices and were generally popular, as they were perceived as more effective and focused. In contrast, only a few walking meetings were completed, and these were generally associated with several barriers and perceived as ineffective. Participants who participated in standing meetings on a regular basis had 59 min less sitting per 8 h workday (95%CI −101;−17) compared to participants who did not participate in standing meetings at all. Walking meeting participation was not significantly associated with changes in sitting time, likely due to the low number of employees who used this option. This explorative study concludes that standing meetings in office workplaces were feasible and well-liked by the employees, and having frequent standing meetings was associated with reduced sitting time. In contrast, walking meetings were unfeasible and less liked, and thus had no effect on sitting time.