Limits...
Desk-based workers' perspectives on using sit-stand workstations: a qualitative analysis of the Stand@Work study.

Chau JY, Daley M, Srinivasan A, Dunn S, Bauman AE, van der Ploeg HP - BMC Public Health (2014)

Bottom Line: Topics covered in the focus groups included patterns of workstation use, barriers and facilitators to standing while working, effects on work performance, physical impacts, and feasibility in the office.Participants were largely intrinsically motivated to try the sit-stand workstation, mostly because of curiosity to try something new, interest in potential health benefits, and the relevance to the participant's own and organisation's work.Common facilitators of sit-stand workstation use were a supportive work environment conducive to standing, perceived physical health benefits, and perceived work benefits.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Prevention Research Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Medical Foundation Building (K25), Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia. hp.vanderploeg@vumc.nl.

ABSTRACT

Background: Prolonged sitting time has been identified as a health risk factor. Sit-stand workstations allow desk workers to alternate between sitting and standing throughout the working day, but not much is known about their acceptability and feasibility. Hence, the aim of this study was to qualitatively evaluate the acceptability, feasibility and perceptions of using sit-stand workstations in a group of desk-based office workers.

Methods: This article describes the qualitative evaluation of the randomized controlled cross-over Stand@Work pilot trial. Participants were adult employees recruited from a non-government health agency in Sydney, Australia. The intervention involved using an Ergotron Workfit S sit-stand workstation for four weeks. After the four week intervention, participants shared their perceptions and experiences of using the sit-stand workstation in focus group interviews with 4-5 participants. Topics covered in the focus groups included patterns of workstation use, barriers and facilitators to standing while working, effects on work performance, physical impacts, and feasibility in the office. Focus group field notes and transcripts were analysed in an iterative process during and after the data collection period to identify the main concepts and themes.

Results: During nine 45-min focus groups, a total of 42 participants were interviewed. Participants were largely intrinsically motivated to try the sit-stand workstation, mostly because of curiosity to try something new, interest in potential health benefits, and the relevance to the participant's own and organisation's work. Most participants used the sit-stand workstation and three common usage patterns were identified: task-based routine, time-based routine, and no particular routine. Common barriers to sit-stand workstation use were working in an open plan office, and issues with sit-stand workstation design. Common facilitators of sit-stand workstation use were a supportive work environment conducive to standing, perceived physical health benefits, and perceived work benefits. When prompted, most participants indicated they were interested in using a sit-stand workstation in the future.

Conclusions: The use of a sit-stand workstation in this group of desk-based office workers was generally perceived as acceptable and feasible. Future studies are needed to explore this in different desk-based work populations and settings.

Show MeSH
Ergotron Workfit S sit-stand workstation.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4125698&req=5

Fig1: Ergotron Workfit S sit-stand workstation.

Mentions: Participants were employees recruited from a non-government health agency in Sydney, Australia. Inclusion criteria included: aged at least 18 years old, working at least three days per week, and with sufficient English language proficiency to complete study tasks. The project was advertised to staff as part of their workplace wellness program and interested employees contacted the research team, who provided additional study information and an expression of interest form. Eligible staff members who returned an expression of interest form were randomly drawn from a ballot by a researcher in the presence of potential participants and other researchers, and were included in the study after providing written informed consent. The first four participants drawn from the ballot were allocated to the intervention group to use a sit-stand workstation for four weeks, the next four participants drawn from the ballot served as the control group. The remaining participants were assigned to the waitlist control condition and were placed on the waiting list in seven groups (4–5 people per group). After the initial four weeks, the previous control group (study group 2) received the intervention with the next group from the ballot draw serving as their controls (study group 3). This was repeated until all nine groups had received the intervention. This study design was used to maximise the evaluation sample size taking into account the five available sit-stand workstations. The intervention involved using an Ergotron model Workfit S sit-stand workstation (Figure 1) for four weeks. Users were provided with a demonstration and instructions on the use of the device, but there was no accompanying behavioural intervention. The study design and recruitment is described in more detail elsewhere [20]. The current manuscript adhered to the RATS guidelines for reporting qualitative studies.Figure 1


Desk-based workers' perspectives on using sit-stand workstations: a qualitative analysis of the Stand@Work study.

Chau JY, Daley M, Srinivasan A, Dunn S, Bauman AE, van der Ploeg HP - BMC Public Health (2014)

Ergotron Workfit S sit-stand workstation.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4125698&req=5

Fig1: Ergotron Workfit S sit-stand workstation.
Mentions: Participants were employees recruited from a non-government health agency in Sydney, Australia. Inclusion criteria included: aged at least 18 years old, working at least three days per week, and with sufficient English language proficiency to complete study tasks. The project was advertised to staff as part of their workplace wellness program and interested employees contacted the research team, who provided additional study information and an expression of interest form. Eligible staff members who returned an expression of interest form were randomly drawn from a ballot by a researcher in the presence of potential participants and other researchers, and were included in the study after providing written informed consent. The first four participants drawn from the ballot were allocated to the intervention group to use a sit-stand workstation for four weeks, the next four participants drawn from the ballot served as the control group. The remaining participants were assigned to the waitlist control condition and were placed on the waiting list in seven groups (4–5 people per group). After the initial four weeks, the previous control group (study group 2) received the intervention with the next group from the ballot draw serving as their controls (study group 3). This was repeated until all nine groups had received the intervention. This study design was used to maximise the evaluation sample size taking into account the five available sit-stand workstations. The intervention involved using an Ergotron model Workfit S sit-stand workstation (Figure 1) for four weeks. Users were provided with a demonstration and instructions on the use of the device, but there was no accompanying behavioural intervention. The study design and recruitment is described in more detail elsewhere [20]. The current manuscript adhered to the RATS guidelines for reporting qualitative studies.Figure 1

Bottom Line: Topics covered in the focus groups included patterns of workstation use, barriers and facilitators to standing while working, effects on work performance, physical impacts, and feasibility in the office.Participants were largely intrinsically motivated to try the sit-stand workstation, mostly because of curiosity to try something new, interest in potential health benefits, and the relevance to the participant's own and organisation's work.Common facilitators of sit-stand workstation use were a supportive work environment conducive to standing, perceived physical health benefits, and perceived work benefits.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Prevention Research Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Medical Foundation Building (K25), Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia. hp.vanderploeg@vumc.nl.

ABSTRACT

Background: Prolonged sitting time has been identified as a health risk factor. Sit-stand workstations allow desk workers to alternate between sitting and standing throughout the working day, but not much is known about their acceptability and feasibility. Hence, the aim of this study was to qualitatively evaluate the acceptability, feasibility and perceptions of using sit-stand workstations in a group of desk-based office workers.

Methods: This article describes the qualitative evaluation of the randomized controlled cross-over Stand@Work pilot trial. Participants were adult employees recruited from a non-government health agency in Sydney, Australia. The intervention involved using an Ergotron Workfit S sit-stand workstation for four weeks. After the four week intervention, participants shared their perceptions and experiences of using the sit-stand workstation in focus group interviews with 4-5 participants. Topics covered in the focus groups included patterns of workstation use, barriers and facilitators to standing while working, effects on work performance, physical impacts, and feasibility in the office. Focus group field notes and transcripts were analysed in an iterative process during and after the data collection period to identify the main concepts and themes.

Results: During nine 45-min focus groups, a total of 42 participants were interviewed. Participants were largely intrinsically motivated to try the sit-stand workstation, mostly because of curiosity to try something new, interest in potential health benefits, and the relevance to the participant's own and organisation's work. Most participants used the sit-stand workstation and three common usage patterns were identified: task-based routine, time-based routine, and no particular routine. Common barriers to sit-stand workstation use were working in an open plan office, and issues with sit-stand workstation design. Common facilitators of sit-stand workstation use were a supportive work environment conducive to standing, perceived physical health benefits, and perceived work benefits. When prompted, most participants indicated they were interested in using a sit-stand workstation in the future.

Conclusions: The use of a sit-stand workstation in this group of desk-based office workers was generally perceived as acceptable and feasible. Future studies are needed to explore this in different desk-based work populations and settings.

Show MeSH