↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of sit-stand workstations in an office setting: a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
twitter
43 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
119 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
415 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
Evaluation of sit-stand workstations in an office setting: a randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2469-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lee E. F. Graves, Rebecca C. Murphy, Sam O. Shepherd, Josephine Cabot, Nicola D. Hopkins

Abstract

Excessive sitting time is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease mortality and morbidity independent of physical activity. This aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a sit-stand workstation on sitting time, and vascular, metabolic and musculoskeletal outcomes in office workers, and to investigate workstation acceptability and feasibility. A two-arm, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial was conducted in one organisation. Participants were asymptomatic full-time office workers aged ≥18 years. Each participant in the intervention arm had a sit-stand workstation installed on their workplace desk for 8 weeks. Participants in the control arm received no intervention. The primary outcome was workplace sitting time, assessed at 0, 4 and 8 weeks by an ecological momentary assessment diary. Secondary behavioural, cardiometabolic and musculoskeletal outcomes were assessed. Acceptability and feasibility were assessed via questionnaire and interview. ANCOVA and magnitude-based inferences examined intervention effects relative to controls at 4 and 8 weeks. Participants and researchers were not blind to group allocation. Forty-seven participants were randomised (intervention n = 26; control n = 21). Relative to the control group at 8 weeks, the intervention group had a beneficial decrease in sitting time (-80.2 min/8-h workday (95 % CI = -129.0, -31.4); p = 0.002), increase in standing time (72.9 min/8-h workday (21.2, 124.6); p = 0.007) and decrease in total cholesterol (-0.40 mmol/L  (-0.79, -0.003); p = 0.049). No harmful changes in musculoskeletal discomfort/pain were observed relative to controls, and beneficial changes in flow-mediated dilation and diastolic blood pressure were observed. Most participants self-reported that the workstation was easy to use and their work-related productivity did not decrease when using the device. Factors that negatively influenced workstation use were workstation design, the social environment, work tasks and habits. Short-term use of a feasible sit-stand workstation reduced daily sitting time and led to beneficial improvements in cardiometabolic risk parameters in asymptomatic office workers. These findings imply that if the observed use of the sit-stand workstations continued over a longer duration, sit-stand workstations may have important ramifications for the prevention and reduction of cardiometabolic risk in a large proportion of the working population. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02496507 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 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 415 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 411 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 72 17%
Student > Bachelor 54 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 13%
Researcher 36 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 5%
Other 73 18%
Unknown 109 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 51 12%
Sports and Recreations 50 12%
Engineering 29 7%
Psychology 27 7%
Other 69 17%
Unknown 120 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 82. 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 22 June 2022.
All research outputs
#508,122
of 25,069,047 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#469
of 16,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,333
of 398,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#3
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,069,047 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 398,345 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.