Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32521625›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020

Natural Patterns of Sitting, Standing and Stepping During and Outside Work-Differences between Habitual Users and Non-Users of Sit-Stand Workstations.

Lidewij R Renaud, Maaike A Huysmans, Hidde P van der Ploeg, Erwin M Speklé, Allard J van der Beek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The sitting vs standing spine.North American Spine Society journal · 2022
    Review
  6. 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

5 authors.

Lidewij R RenaudDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Maaike A HuysmansDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hidde P van der PloegDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Erwin M SpekléDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Allard J van der BeekDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sit-stand workstations have shown to reduce sitting time in office workers on a group level. However, movement behaviour patterns might differ between subgroups of workers. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine sitting, standing and stepping outcomes between habitual users and non-users of sit-stand workstations. From an international office population based in the Netherlands, 24 users and 25 non-users of sit-stand workstations were included (all had long-term access to these workstations). Using the ActivPAL, sitting, standing and stepping were objectively measured during and outside working hours. Differences in outcomes between users and non-users were analysed using linear regression. During working hours, users sat less (-1.64; 95% IC= -2.27--1.01 hour/8 hour workday) and stood more (1.51; 95% IC= 0.92-2.10 hour/8 hour workday) than non-users. Attenuated but similar differences were also found for total sitting time over the whole week. Furthermore, time in static standing bouts was relatively high for users during working hours (median= 0.56; IQR = 0.19-1.08 hour/8 hour workday). During non-working hours on workdays and during non-working days, no differences were found between users and non-users. During working hours, habitual users of their sit-stand workstation sat substantially less and stood proportionally more than non-users. No differences were observed outside working hours, leading to attenuated but similar differences in total sitting and standing time between users and non-users for total days. This indicated that the users of sit-stand workstations reduced their sitting time at work, but this seemed not to be accompanied by major carry-over or compensatory effects outside working hours.

Indexed as

Occupational HealthSitting PositionStanding PositionWorkplaceHumansMaleNetherlandsPosturemovement patternsoffice workersprolonged sittingprolonged standingsit–stand workstationsusers and non-usersworking and non-working hours

Identifiers

PMID32521625
PMCPMC7312662

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.