Active time at work following the introduction of a standing and a cycling workstation into worker’s office space

Abstract

Objectives. Active workstations have been proposed to counteract sedentary behavior at work. This study describes office workers’ use of and perceptions toward standing and cycling workstations, and assesses whether the two active workstations were sufficient to break sitting time and replace it with 2–4 h of light activity per workday. Methods. This mixed-method study utilized video recording, semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire. The quantitative data covered time spent sitting, standing and on a cycling workstation. The qualitative data were analyzed based on preferences, barriers and facilitators. Results. Participants (n = 15) used active workstations 125.3 (74.5) min/day and spent 79.0 (63.6) min/day using standing versus 46.3 (47.6) min/day using cycling workstations (p = 0.153, d = 0.58). Following the interviews, the standing workstation was preferred over cycling. The ergonomics of the cycling workstation were not optimal and caused discomfort in use. Seven participants broke their sitting time and accumulated 2+ h of light physical activity per workday. Those participants meeting recommendations were older, had a higher body fat percentage and engaged in less physical activity per week. Conclusion. With a preference for standing workstations, our results showed that 47% of workers used standing and cycling workstations to accumulate 2+ h of active time per day.

Keywords:

• sedentary behavior
• occupational health
• active workstation

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the following individuals who contributed significant time and effort to the consensus development process and the preparation of this manuscript: Jeremy Fabre, Miguel Chagnon, Pr. Jeffrey Caron and François Lecot. M. E. Mathieu holds a Canada Research Chair on Physical Activity and Juvenile Obesity.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Healthy and Productive Work initiative by Social Sciences and Humanities Research and Canadian Institutes of Health Research [Grant Number #146019].