Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37494100›Full record

SynthesisJMIR public health and surveillance2023

Effectiveness of Multicomponent Interventions in Office-Based Workers to Mitigate Occupational Sedentary Behavior: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Liying Zhou, Xinxin Deng, Kangle Guo, Liangying Hou, Xu Hui, Yanan Wu, Meng Xu, Yongsheng Wang, Shanshan Liang, Kehu Yang and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Natural experiments for healthier communities: evidence to drive Canadian policy and practice.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Liying Zhou *Health Technology Assessment Center/Evidence-Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2001-5210
Xinxin Deng *Health Technology Assessment Center/Evidence-Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.ORCID 0009-0004-3463-3399
Kangle GuoInfection Management Section, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2753-3272
Liangying HouHealth Technology Assessment Center/Evidence-Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-9163-0475
Xu HuiHealth Technology Assessment Center/Evidence-Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-1908-7818
Yanan WuHealth Technology Assessment Center/Evidence-Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3240-6278
Meng XuHealth Technology Assessment Center/Evidence-Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1166-7786
Yongsheng WangHealth Technology Assessment Center/Evidence-Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-1827-737X
Shanshan LiangHealth Technology Assessment Center/Evidence-Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.ORCID 0009-0009-6480-2348
Kehu YangHealth Technology Assessment Center/Evidence-Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7864-3012
Xiuxia LiHealth Technology Assessment Center/Evidence-Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0210-9793
Lanzhou University · CNGansu Provincial Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSedentary time in workplaces has been linked to increased risks of chronic occupational diseases, obesity, and overall mortality. Currently, there is a burgeoning research interest in the implementation of multicomponent interventions aimed at decreasing sedentary time among office workers, which encompass a comprehensive amalgamation of individual, organizational, and environmental strategies.

objectiveThis meta-analysis aims at evaluating the effectiveness of multicomponent interventions to mitigate occupational sedentary behavior at work compared with no intervention.

methodsPubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from database inception until March 2023 to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of multicomponent interventions on occupational sedentary behavior among office-based workers. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias by using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. The average intervention effect on sedentary time was calculated using Stata 15.1. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs were used to calculate the continuous variables. Subgroup analyses were performed to determine whether sit-stand workstation, feedback, and prompt elements played an important role in multicomponent interventions. Further, the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

resultsA total of 11 RCTs involving 1894 patients were included in the analysis. Five studies were rated as low risk of bias, 2 as unclear risk of bias, and 4 as high risk. The meta-analysis results showed that compared with no intervention, multicomponent interventions significantly reduced occupational sitting time (MD=-52.25 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -73.06 to -31.44; P<.001) and occupational prolonged sitting time (MD=-32.63 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -51.93 to -13.33; P=.001) and increased occupational standing time (MD=44.30 min/8-h workday, 95% CI 23.11-65.48; P<.001), whereas no significant differences were found in occupational stepping time (P=.06). The results of subgroup analysis showed that compared with multicomponent interventions without installment of sit-stand workstations, multicomponent interventions with sit-stand workstation installment showed better effects for reducing occupational sitting time (MD=-71.95 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -92.94 to -51.15), increasing occupational standing time (MD=66.56 min/8-h workday, 95% CI 43.45-89.67), and reducing occupational prolonged sitting time (MD=-47.05 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -73.66 to -20.43). The GRADE evidence summary showed that all 4 outcomes were rated as moderate certainty.

conclusionsMulticomponent interventions, particularly those incorporating sit-stand workstations for all participants, are effective at reducing workplace sedentary time. However, given their cost, further research is needed to understand the effectiveness of low-cost/no-cost multicomponent interventions.

Indexed as

Sedentary BehaviorWorkplaceHumansTime Factorsmulticomponentsedentary behaviorsystematic reviewworkplace

Identifiers

PMID37494100
PMCPMC10413238
OpenAlexW4385264340

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.