ArticlePloS one2018
"Could you sit down please?" A qualitative analysis of employees' experiences of standing in normally-seated workplace meetings.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- "Why would you want to stand?" an account of the lived experience of employees taking part in a workplace sit-stand desk intervention.BMC public health · 2019Trial
- Office workers' experiences of attempts to reduce sitting-time: an exploratory, mixed-methods uncontrolled intervention pilot study.BMC public health · 2019Trial
- Interrupting sedentary behaviour when working from home: a qualitative exploration of older desk-based employees.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Understanding university students' experiences of sitting while studying at home: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2024Article
- An intervention to promote positive homeworker health and wellbeing through effective home-working practices: a feasibility and acceptability study.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Peer champions responses to nudge-based strategies designed to reduce prolonged sitting behaviour: Lessons learnt and implications from lived experiences of non-compliant participants.AIMS public health · 2022Article
- Understanding the Implementation of "Sit Less at Work" Interventions in Three Organisations: A Mixed Methods Process Evaluation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Using the Behavior Change Wheel to Understand University Students' Prolonged Sitting Time and Identify Potential Intervention Strategies.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2021Article
- Feasibility of Reducing and Breaking Up University Students' Sedentary Behaviour: Pilot Trial and Process Evaluation.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Reducing sitting at work: process evaluation of the SMArT Work (Stand More At Work) intervention.Trials · 2020Article
- Standing Meetings Are Feasible and Effective in Reducing Sitting Time among Office Workers-Walking Meetings Are Not: Mixed-Methods Results on the Feasibility and Effectiveness of Active Meetings Based on Data from the "Take a Stand!" Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- The user and non-user perspective: Experiences of office workers with long-term access to sit-stand workstations.PloS one · 2020Article
- Controversies in the Science of Sedentary Behaviour and Health: Insights, Perspectives and Future directions from the 2018 Queensland Sedentary Behaviour Think Tank.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Office workers spend most of their working day sitting, and prolonged sitting has been associated with increased risk of poor health. Standing in meetings has been proposed as a strategy by which to reduce workplace sitting but little is known about the standing experience. This study documented workers' experiences of standing in normally seated meetings. Twenty-five participants (18+ years), recruited from three UK universities, volunteered to stand in 3 separate, seated meetings that they were already scheduled to attend. They were instructed to stand when and for however long they deemed appropriate, and gave semi-structured interviews after each meeting. Verbatim transcripts were analysed using Framework Analysis. Four themes, central to the experience of standing in meetings, were extracted: physical challenges to standing; implications of standing for meeting engagement; standing as norm violation; and standing as appropriation of power. Participants typically experienced some physical discomfort from prolonged standing, apparently due to choosing to stand for as long as possible, and noted practical difficulties of fully engaging in meetings while standing. Many participants experienced marked psychological discomfort due to concern at being seen to be violating a strong perceived sitting norm. While standing when leading the meeting was felt to confer a sense of power and control, when not leading the meeting participants felt uncomfortable at being misperceived to be challenging the authority of other attendees. These findings reveal important barriers to standing in normally-seated meetings, and suggest strategies for acclimatising to standing during meetings. Physical discomfort might be offset by building standing time slowly and incorporating more sit-stand transitions. Psychological discomfort may be lessened by notifying other attendees about intentions to stand. Organisational buy-in to promotional strategies for standing may be required to dispel perceptions of sitting norms, and to progress a wider workplace health and wellbeing agenda.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.