BACKGROUND: Interventions to increase physical activity or reduce sedentary behaviour within the workplace setting have shown mixed effects. This cluster randomised controlled trial assessed whether multi-component interventions, focusing on changes at the individual, environmental, and organisational levels, either increased physical activity or reduced sedentary behaviour, compared to a passive control group.
METHODS: Teams of office-workers from two companies participated in one of two interventions (iPA: targeting physical activity; or iSED: targeting sedentary behaviour), or wait-list control group (C). Exclusion criterion was very high physical activity level (MVPA ≥30 min/day in ≥10 min bouts every day). Randomisation occurred at the level of workplace cluster, and groups were randomly allocated (1:1) with stratification for company and cluster size. Personnel involved in data collection and processing were blinded to group allocation. Both interventions included five sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy counselling for 6 months. iPA included counselling focused on physical activity, access to a gym, and encouragement to exercise, and go for lunch walks. iSED included counselling on sedentary behaviour and encouragement to reduce sitting and increase engagement in standing- and walking-meetings. At baseline and the 6-month mark accelerometers were worn on the hip and thigh for 7 days. The primary outcomes were group differences in time spent in moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity (%MVPA) and in sedentary behaviour (%), analysed using Bayesian multilevel modelling for those with complete data.
RESULTS: Two-hundred and sixty three office workers (73% women, mean age 42 ± 9 years, education 15 ± 2 years) were randomised into 23 cluster teams (iPA n = 84, 8 clusters; iSED n = 87, 7 clusters; C n = 92, 7 clusters). No significant group differences (posterior mean ratios: 95% credible interval) were found after the intervention for %MVPA or for %Sedentary. %MVPA: iPA vs C (0·04: - 0·80-0·82); iSED vs C (0·47: - 0·41-1·32); iPA vs iSED (0·43: - 0·42-1·27). %Sedentary: iPA vs C (1·16: - 1·66-4·02); iSED vs C (- 0·44: - 3·50-2·64); iPA vs iSED (- 1·60: - 4·72-1·47).
CONCLUSIONS: The multi-component interventions focusing on either physical activity or sedentary behaviour were unsuccessful at increasing device-measured physical activity or reducing sedentary behaviour compared to a control group.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN92968402 . Registered 27/2/2018, recruitment started 15/03/2018.
BioMed Central (BMC), 2020. Vol. 20, no 1, article id 1329
Device-based, Intervention, Office workers, Physical activity, Sedentary behaviour, Self-report, Workplace