↓ Skip to main content

The development, implementation and evaluation of interventions to reduce workplace sitting: a qualitative systematic review and evidence-based operational framework

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
26 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The development, implementation and evaluation of interventions to reduce workplace sitting: a qualitative systematic review and evidence-based operational framework
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5768-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kelly Mackenzie, Elizabeth Such, Paul Norman, Elizabeth Goyder

Abstract

Prolonged sitting is associated with increased risks of cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, some cancers, musculoskeletal disorders and premature mortality. Workplaces contribute to a large proportion of daily sitting time, particularly among office-based workers. Interventions to reduce workplace sitting therefore represent important public health initiatives. Previous systematic reviews suggest such interventions can be effective but have reported wide variations. Further, there is uncertainty as to whether effectiveness in controlled trials can be replicated when implemented outside the research setting. The aims of this review are to identify factors important for the implementation of workplace sitting interventions and to translate these findings into a useful operational framework to support the future implementation of such interventions. A qualitative systematic review was conducted. Four health and social science databases were searched for studies set in the workplace, with office-based employees and with the primary aim of reducing workplace sitting. Extracted data were primarily from author descriptions of interventions and their implementation. Inductive thematic analysis and synthesis was undertaken. Forty studies met the inclusion criteria. Nine descriptive themes were identified from which emerged three higher-order analytical themes, which related to the development, implementation and evaluation of workplace sitting interventions. Key findings included: the importance of grounding interventions in theory; utilising participative approaches during intervention development and implementation; and conducting comprehensive process and outcome evaluations. There was a general under-reporting of information relating to the context within which workplace sitting interventions were implemented, such as details of local organisation processes and structures, as well as the wider political and economic landscape, which if present would aid the translation of knowledge into "real-world" settings. These findings provided the basis for an operational framework, which is a representation of all nine descriptive themes and three higher-order analytical themes, to support workplace sitting intervention development, implementation and evaluation. Once tested and refined, this framework has the potential to be incorporated into a practical toolkit, which could be used by a range of organisations to develop, implement and evaluate their own interventions to reduce workplace sitting time amongst staff.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 147 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 13%
Researcher 17 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 3%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 60 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 14%
Social Sciences 13 9%
Psychology 10 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Sports and Recreations 7 5%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 68 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 July 2019.
All research outputs
#2,148,010
of 24,597,084 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,447
of 16,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,894
of 332,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#75
of 336 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,597,084 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,945 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 336 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.