Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32770969›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2020

"Oh-oh, the others are standing up... I better do the same". Mixed-method evaluation of the implementation process of 'Take a Stand!' - a cluster randomized controlled trial of a multicomponent intervention to reduce sitting time among office workers.

Ida H Danquah, Stine Kloster, Janne S Tolstrup

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01996176 (Take a Stand ! - a Cluster Randomized Controlled Intervention Study at Four Office-based Workplaces Aiming to Reduce Occupational Sitting Time), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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.

NCT01996176 nacompletednot on this map

Take a Stand ! - a Cluster Randomized Controlled Intervention Study at Four Office-based Workplaces Aiming to Reduce Occupational Sitting Time

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Southern DenmarkRan2013 to 2014Enrolled337ConditionsSedentary LifestyleArmsIntervention group, Control group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ida H DanquahNational Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Studiestræde 6, 1455, Copenhagen, Denmark. idah@niph.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2298-400X
Stine KlosterNational Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Studiestræde 6, 1455, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Janne S TolstrupNational Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Studiestræde 6, 1455, Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

TrygFonden 2071
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMulticomponent workplace-based interventions aimed at reducing sitting time among office workers are becoming increasingly popular. 'Take a Stand!' was such an intervention, reducing sitting time by 71 min after 1 month and 48 min after 3 months. However, it is unclear how the implementation process of 'Take a Stand!' affected these results. The present study explored how individual factors and organizational context influenced implementation and effect in 'Take a Stand!'

methodsThis was a mixed-methods study, combining data from interviews, questionnaires and accelerometers. Directed content analysis was used for analysing interviews with participants, ambassadors and managers from the 10 intervention offices in the 'Take a Stand!' STUDY: Categories for analysis were taken from Framework for Evaluating Organizational-level Interventions. Interview data were combined with questionnaire and activity data, and multilevel analysis was undertaken to assess how changes in sitting time varied depending on the assessed factors. In addition, interview data were used to underpin results from the multilevel analysis.

resultsConcurrent institutional changes were found to be a barrier for the intervention by ambassadors, while participants and managers did not find it to be an issue. Management support was consistently highlighted as very important. Participants evaluated ambassadors as being generally adequately active but also, that the role had a greater potential. The motivational and social aspects of the intervention were considered important for the effect. This was supported by regression analyses, which showed that a strong desire to change sitting time habits, strong motivation towards the project, and a high sense of collective engagement were associated to less sitting time at 3 months of about 30 min/8 h working day compared to participants with low scores. Influence from other participants (e.g. seeing others raise their tables) and the use of humour were continuously highlighted by participants as positive for implementation. Finally, the intervention was found to influence the social climate at the workplace positively.

conclusionIndividual motivation was related to the sitting time effect of 'Take a Stand!', but the organizational culture was relevant both to the implementation and effect within the office community. The organizational culture included among others to ensure general participation, to uphold management and peer-support, and maintain a positive environment during the intervention period.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01996176 . Prospectively registered 21 November 2013.

Indexed as

Occupational HealthOrganizational CultureAdultCluster AnalysisFemaleHealth Plan ImplementationHealth PromotionHumansInterior Design and FurnishingsMaleMiddle AgedMotivationOccupational DiseasesProgram EvaluationSedentary BehaviorSitting PositionProcess evaluationRandomized controlled trialSedentary behaviourSedentary workWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID32770969
PMCPMC7414748
OpenAlexW3048306291

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.