OBJECTIVE Prolonged sitting, which is highly prevalent in office workers, has been associated with several health risks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the Dynamic Work intervention by determining its effect on total sitting time at the 8-month follow-up in comparison to the control. METHODS This two-arm pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial included 244 office workers from 14 different departments of a large, Dutch insurance company. The Dynamic Work intervention was a real-life, worksite intervention that included environmental components (i.e. sit-stand workstations), organisational components (i.e. group sessions), and individual components (e.g. activity/sitting trackers). Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 4-month follow-up, and 8-month follow-up. The primary outcome was total sitting time per day, objectively assessed using the activPAL activity monitor at 8-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included other total and occupational movement behaviour outcomes, health-related outcomes, and work-related outcomes. Data analyses were performed using linear and logistic mixed models. RESULTS Total sitting time did not differ between the intervention and control group at the 8-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes also showed no difference between the intervention and control group at either the 4-month or at 8-month follow-up, with the exception of number of occupational steps, which showed a statistically significant effect at 4-month follow-up (but not at 8-month follow-up) of 913 (95% CI = 381-1445) steps/8-h working day. CONCLUSIONS This study evaluated the effectiveness of a real-life worksite intervention to reduce sitting time and showed little to no effect. This may be due to the relatively low intensity of the intervention, i.e. that it only involved the replacement of 25% of sitting workstations with sit-stand workstations. Future research should focus on the evaluation of more intensive real-life worksite interventions that are still feasible for implementation in daily practice. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV, REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT03115645.

中文翻译：

---

多成分动态工作干预减少上班族就座时间的有效性-一项实用集群随机对照试验的结果。

目的长时间坐着在办公室工作人员中很普遍，与一些健康风险有关。这项研究的目的是通过确定动态工作干预与对照相比，在8个月的随访中确定其对总就座时间的影响，以评估动态干预。方法该两臂实用集群随机对照试验包括来自一家大型荷兰保险公司14个不同部门的244名上班族。动态工作干预是现实生活中的工作场所干预，包括环境组件（即坐立式工作站），组织组件（即小组会议）和个人组件（例如活动/就座跟踪器）。在基线，4个月的随访和8个月的随访中评估结果。主要结果是每天的总坐时间，在8个月的随访中使用activPAL活动监视器客观评估。次要结局包括其他总体和职业运动行为结局，与健康有关的结局和与工作有关的结局。使用线性和逻辑混合模型进行数据分析。结果在8个月的随访中，干预组和对照组的总坐位时间没有差异。次要结局在4个月或8个月的随访中也没有显示干预组和对照组之间的差异，除了职业步骤的数目不同外，这在4个月的随访中具有统计学上的显着影响（ （但在8个月的随访中没有）913个步骤（95％CI = 381-1445），每天工作8小时。结论这项研究评估了现实生活中的现场干预减少坐位的有效性，并且显示出几乎没有影响。这可能是由于干预强度相对较低，即干预只涉及将坐立式工作站替换为坐立式工作站的25％。未来的研究应集中在评估更密集的现实生活现场干预措施上，这些干预措施仍可在日常实践中实施。临床试验。GOV，注册号NCT03115645。未来的研究应集中在评估更密集的现实生活现场干预措施上，这些干预措施仍可在日常实践中实施。临床试验。GOV，注册号NCT03115645。未来的研究应集中在评估更密集的现实生活现场干预措施上，这些干预措施仍可在日常实践中实施。临床试验。GOV，注册号NCT03115645。