Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30413101›Full record

Observational studyInternational journal of environmental research and public health2018

Introducing a Dynamic Workstation in the Office: Insights in Characteristics of Use and Short-Term Changes of Well-Being in a 12 Week Observational Study.

Vera Schellewald, Jens Kleinert, Rolf Ellegast

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Vera SchellewaldInstitute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident Insurance (IFA), Alte Heerstr. 111, 53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany. vera.schellewald@dguv.de.
Jens KleinertInstitute of Psychology, German Sport University Cologne, Am Sportpark Müngersdorf 6, 50933 Köln, Germany. kleinert@dshs-koeln.de.
Rolf EllegastInstitute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident Insurance (IFA), Alte Heerstr. 111, 53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany. Rolf.Ellegast@dguv.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present field study evaluates the use of dynamic workstations (cycling devices) in a real-life office environment. Specific characteristics of use were recorded and possible relationships with short-term changes in well-being were investigated. For a period of 12 weeks, 36 employees were given free access to eight devices. Frequency, duration and speed of use were self-determined but registered objectively for every event of use. Immediately before and after using a cycling device, employees rated their well-being with a modified version of the EZ-scale from Nitsch to assess changes in the short-term. In total, 817 events of use were registered. On each day of the intervention period one of the devices was used. Participants used the devices between one day to all days present at the office, for 21.09 (SD 0.58) to 31.58 (SD 2.19) minutes on average per event of use per day. Comparing the pre- and post-measurements, a significant increase in well-being after using a cycling device was found. Results of a Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) analysis showed mixed effects for the duration of use, the speed and variation of speed on the probability of reporting positive changes in recovery, calmness and mood. Therefore, using cycling devices in the office might improve short-term well-being.

Indexed as

BicyclingWorkplaceAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOccupational Healthcycling devicedynamic office workstationshort-term changeswell-being

Identifiers

PMID30413101
PMCPMC6266618

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.