Evidence base of economic evaluations of workplace-based interventions reducing occupational sitting time: an integrative review

Sanaz Akhavan Rad, Frank Kiwanuka, Raija Korpelainen, Paulus Torkki, Sanaz Akhavan Rad, Frank Kiwanuka, Raija Korpelainen, Paulus Torkki

Abstract

Objective: To review the evidence on the economic evaluations of workplace-based interventions that are designed to reduce prolonged periods of occupational sitting.

Design: An integrative review.

Data sources: The search was conducted in 11 databases, including PubMed, Scopus, PsychINFO, NHS-EED, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ProQuest, Cochrane library, Sportdiscus, Research Paper in Economics (RePeC), the International Health Economic Association (IHEA) and EconLit. The databases were searched for articles published from inception to January 2022. Subsequent citation searches were also conducted in Google Scholar. The items of the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist were used for quality appraisal of the included studies.

Results: This review included five randomised control trails, including 757 office-based workers in high-income countries. The median quality appraisal score based on the CHEC items was 14 points (a range of 9-18). The mean duration of interventions was 33 weeks (a range of 4-52 weeks). Overall, the studies reported economic benefit when implemented to reduce occupational sitting time but no effect on absenteeism. From the societal perspective, the interventions (eg, the use of a sit-stand desk) were cost-effective.

Conclusion: The economic impact of workplace interventions implemented to reduce occupational sitting time is evident; however, the existing evidence is limited, which precludes strong conclusions. Cost-effectiveness is not often evaluated in the studies exploring workplace interventions that address occupational sitting time. Workplace interventions are still in the development and testing phase; thus, the challenge for future studies is to include economic evaluation of interventions addressing sedentary behaviour in workplaces.

Prospero registration number: CRD42021226275.

Keywords: OCCUPATIONAL & INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE; PUBLIC HEALTH; SPORTS MEDICINE.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram showing the study selection process. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses.

References

    1. Tcymbal A, Andreasyan D, Whiting S, et al. . Prevalence of physical inactivity and sedentary behavior among adults in Armenia. Front Public Health 2020;8:157. 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00157
    1. Gao L, Flego A, Dunstan DW, et al. . Economic evaluation of a randomized controlled trial of an intervention to reduce office workers' sitting time: the "Stand Up Victoria" trial. Scand J Work Environ Health 2018;44:503–11. 10.5271/sjweh.3740
    1. Tremblay MS, Aubert S, Barnes JD, et al. . Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) - Terminology Consensus Project process and outcome. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2017;14:75. 10.1186/s12966-017-0525-8
    1. Vallance JK, Gardiner PA, Lynch BM, et al. . Evaluating the evidence on sitting, smoking, and health: is sitting really the new smoking? Am J Public Health 2018;108:1478–82. 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304649
    1. Campen CLMvan, Rowe PC, Visser FC. Reductions in cerebral blood flow can be provoked by sitting in severe myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic fatigue syndrome patients. Healthcare 2020;8:394. 10.3390/healthcare8040394
    1. Quittan M. Aspects of physical medicine and rehabilitation in the treatment of deconditioned patients in the acute care setting: the role of skeletal muscle. Wien Med Wochenschr 2016;166:28–38. 10.1007/s10354-015-0418-x
    1. Baker R, Coenen P, Howie E, et al. . The short term musculoskeletal and cognitive effects of prolonged sitting during office computer work. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018;15:1678. 10.3390/ijerph15081678
    1. Boukabache A, Preece SJ, Brookes N. Prolonged sitting and physical inactivity are associated with limited hip extension: a cross-sectional study. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 2021;51:102282. 10.1016/j.msksp.2020.102282
    1. Bailey DP, Hewson DJ, Champion RB, et al. . Sitting time and risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med 2019;57:408–16. 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.04.015
    1. Ekelund U, Steene-Johannessen J, Brown WJ, et al. . Does physical activity attenuate, or even eliminate, the detrimental association of sitting time with mortality? A harmonised meta-analysis of data from more than 1 million men and women. Lancet 2016;388:1302–10. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30370-1
    1. Ding D, Lawson KD, Kolbe-Alexander TL, et al. . The economic burden of physical inactivity: a global analysis of major non-communicable diseases. Lancet 2016;388:1311–24. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30383-X
    1. Shrestha N, Kukkonen-Harjula KT, Verbeek JH, et al. . Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;6:CD010912. 10.1002/14651858.CD010912.pub4
    1. Gao L, Nguyen P, Dunstan D, et al. . Are office-based workplace interventions designed to reduce sitting time cost-effective primary prevention measures for cardiovascular disease? A systematic review and modelled economic evaluation. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16:834. 10.3390/ijerph16050834
    1. Lutz N, Clarys P, Koenig I, et al. . Health economic evaluations of interventions to increase physical activity and decrease sedentary behavior at the workplace: a systematic review. Scand J Work Environ Health 2020;46:127–42. 10.5271/sjweh.3871
    1. Benatti FB, Ried-Larsen M. The effects of breaking up prolonged sitting time: a review of experimental studies. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2015;47:2053–61. 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000654
    1. van Niekerk S-M, Louw QA, Hillier S. The effectiveness of a chair intervention in the workplace to reduce musculoskeletal symptoms. A systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2012;13:145. 10.1186/1471-2474-13-145
    1. King AC, Whitt-Glover MC, Marquez DX, et al. . Physical activity promotion: highlights from the 2018 physical activity guidelines Advisory Committee systematic review. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2019;51:1340–53. 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001945
    1. Owen N, Healy GN, Matthews CE, et al. . Too much sitting: the population health science of sedentary behavior. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2010;38:105–13. 10.1097/JES.0b013e3181e373a2
    1. Hamilton MT, Hamilton DG, Zderic TW. Role of low energy expenditure and sitting in obesity, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Diabetes 2007;56:2655–67. 10.2337/db07-0882
    1. Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs 2005;52:546–53. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
    1. Nambudiri VE, Qureshi A. Comparative effectiveness research. J Invest Dermatol 2013;133:e5:1–4. 10.1038/jid.2012.497
    1. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, et al. . Rayyan-a web and mobile APP for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016;5:210. 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
    1. Evers S, Goossens M, de Vet H, et al. . Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: consensus on health economic criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21:240–5. 10.1017/S0266462305050324
    1. Ben Ângela J, Jelsma JGM, Renaud LR, et al. . Cost-Effectiveness and Return-on-Investment of the dynamic work intervention compared with usual practice to reduce sedentary behavior. J Occup Environ Med 2020;62:e449–56. 10.1097/JOM.0000000000001930
    1. Dutta N, Koepp G, Stovitz S, et al. . Using sit-stand workstations to decrease sedentary time in office workers: a randomized crossover trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health;11:6653–65. 10.3390/ijerph110706653
    1. Munir F, Miller P, Biddle SJH, et al. . A cost and cost-benefit analysis of the stand more at work (smart work) intervention. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17:1214. 10.3390/ijerph17041214
    1. Weatherson KA, Wunderlich KB, Faulkner GE. Impact of a low-cost standing desk on reducing workplace sitting (StandUP UbC): a randomised controlled trial. Appl Ergon 2020;82:102951. 10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102951
    1. Tew GA, Posso MC, Arundel CE, et al. . Systematic review: height-adjustable workstations to reduce sedentary behaviour in office-based workers. Occup Med 2015;65:357–66. 10.1093/occmed/kqv044
    1. Shi CR, Nambudiri VE. Research Techniques Made Simple: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. J Invest Dermatol 2017;137:e143–7. 10.1016/j.jid.2017.03.004
    1. Hartfiel N, Clarke G, Havenhand J, et al. . Cost-Effectiveness of yoga for managing musculoskeletal conditions in the workplace. Occup Med 2017;67:687–95. 10.1093/occmed/kqx161
    1. Lokman S, Volker D, Zijlstra-Vlasveld MC, et al. . Return-To-Work intervention versus usual care for sick-listed employees: health-economic investment appraisal alongside a cluster randomised trial. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016348. 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016348
    1. Martin A, Fitzsimons C, Jepson R, et al. . Interventions with potential to reduce sedentary time in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 2015;49:1056–63. 10.1136/bjsports-2014-094524
    1. Neuhaus M, Eakin EG, Straker L, et al. . Reducing occupational sedentary time: a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence on activity-permissive workstations. Obes Rev 2014;15:822–38. 10.1111/obr.12201

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe