Elsevier

Applied Ergonomics

Volume 94, July 2021, 103426
Applied Ergonomics

Usage of sit-stand workstations: Benefits and barriers from decision makers’ perspective in Australia

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103426Get rights and content

Highlights

  • SSWs are mostly provided on request and to improve health.

  • About half of Australian organisations provide training on SSW use.

  • Most organisations do not monitor SSW use or offer strategies to support their use.

  • Australian furniture purchasing decision makers require guidelines for SSW use.

  • Decision makers believe SSWs ease discomfort, increase satisfaction and productivity.

Abstract

The aim of this cross-sectional mixed-method study was to understand the current use, and practices to support the implementation, of sit-stand workstations (SSWs) from the perspective of furniture purchasing decision makers in Australian organisations. An online survey, and in-depth interviews with a purposive sub-sample were conducted. A total of 216 eligible participants from 150 organisations across 18 sectors completed the survey with 17 interviews conducted. 40% of organisations provided SSWs on request while 41% reported not using them appropriately. Over half provided no training on the appropriate use of SSWs (n = 109, 51%) nor used any strategies to enhance their use (n = 163, 84%). From the interviews, SSWs were perceived effective in reducing discomforts and increasing employees’ satisfaction and productivity. Lack of resources and guidelines to support SSW usage, and lack of wellbeing knowledge, were identified as barriers. Education and ongoing monitoring are important to enhance the appropriate use and uptake of SSWs.

Introduction

Sitting time and inactivity at work have increased over the last few decades such that it is now estimated that desk workers spend, on average, 77–82% of their workday sitting (Keown et al., 2018, Parry and Straker, 2013; Rosenkranz et al., 2020; Thorp et al., 2012; Waters et al., 2016). Prolonged occupational sedentary behaviour has become an important risk factor for ill-health in the working population (Dunstan et al., 2012), and is acknowledged as an emergent work health and safety issue in Australia (Straker et al., 2016). The provision of a sit-stand workstation (SSW) for individuals has consistently been shown to reduce prolonged sitting time (Shrestha et al., 2018), decrease short-term musculoskeletal discomfort and improve cardiovascular outcomes (Agarwal et al., 2018; Chambers et al., 2019), particularly when combined with strategies to raise awareness and build a supportive culture for change (Healy et al., 2016). There is also preliminary evidence that long-term use of SSWs (greater than 3 months) has benefits for cardio-metabolic risk indicators (Alkhajah et al., 2012; Healy et al., 2013) as well as productivity (Chu et al., 2016; Gao et al., 2018; MacEwen et al., 2015; Peterman et al., 2019; Sui et al., 2019). User-experience feedback has also been positive, with workers reporting feeling healthier and more productive and energetic following the introduction of a SSW (Baukens et al., 2019; Renaud et al., 2018).

Since the introduction of SSWs and published benefits, they have become more affordable, with multiple suppliers now offering SSW options. In Australia, reports from Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) regulators (Straker et al., 2016; Workplace Health and Safety Queensland, 2017), and anecdotal observation, suggests that there has been a rapid uptake in SSWs across desk-based organisations. However, to date, evidence around the use of SSWs has been related to the users’ experience (Chau et al., 2014; Grunseit et al., 2013). To our knowledge, there is no information concerning the use and implementation process of SSWs in workplaces; the internal mechanisms to evaluate the benefits to employees and organisations after implementation; and, monitoring (if any) of their usage by the staff. Furthermore, although health and safety regulators in Australia and other countries have provided specific guidelines (Workplace Health and Safety Queensland, 2017), fact sheets (Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, 2016; Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2014), or online training (Washington State Department of Labour and Industries, 2018) on the use of SSWs; it is unclear if workplaces are aware of and using these resources, whether workplaces have completed a risk assessment to determine the need for these alternate workstations, and/or whether relevant policies, procedures, and training are in place to guide optimal use of this equipment as is the recommended process when new equipment is introduced into any workplace (Safe Work Australia, 2018). Individuals with furniture purchasing decisions within an organisation are likely to have unique insights and knowledge regarding these evidence gaps; however, to date, their perspectives have not been captured.

Therefore, this study was conducted with individuals responsible for furniture purchasing decisions in organisations who have already invested in SSWs with the aim to (1) explore the current use, and practices that support the use, of SSWs in organisations; (2) understand the perceived benefits and barriers to use and workplace implementation of SSWs from decision makers’ perspective; and, (3) to explore the directions for future practices to support the appropriate use and uptake of SSWs. The findings will help to optimise the benefits of SSWs to the users and organisations.

Section snippets

Study design and participants

This cross-sectional mixed-method study was conducted in two phases, with an initial online survey and then follow-up interviews with a sub-sample of survey participants, with the selection of this sub-sample detailed in section 2.2. Eligible participants were individuals with decision-making authority within their organisation for purchasing office furniture. This target group varied between organisations but generally included individuals from middle/senior management including directors,

Participant and organisation characteristics

A total of 503 people accessed the online survey with 216 eligible decision makers from over 150 organisations completing the survey in full. Just over half were female (n = 123, 57%), with a mean age of 45 (SD = 10.1) years. More than half of respondents were in a team leader/middle management role (n = 125, 58%) with the majority having more than two roles in the decision-making process (84%, n = 181); mainly ‘responding to employee's needs' (n = 148/450, 33%) and ‘advocating to management’

Discussion

This study investigated the current use and practices of SSWs from the perspective of furniture purchasing decision makers. This target group have a responsibility to support organisational policy for health and safety and make decisions on purchasing SSWs for their workplaces, and this is, to our knowledge, the first study to specifically target this important stakeholder.

This study found that almost half of the organisations surveyed provided SSWs on request and/or for employees with medical

Conclusion

Several benefits and barriers for the use of SSWs were identified by furniture purchasing decision makers. The implementation of SSWs in workplaces was perceived to be effective in promoting postural change, reducing discomforts and enhancing employees’ satisfaction and productivity. However, the design limitations of certain types of SSWs, lack of resources and clear guidelines, and lack of wellbeing knowledge of employees were critical barriers to their use. There is a need for more resources

Funding

HZ is supported by The University of Queensland Research Training Scholarship. GNH is supported by the Australian Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) Emerging Leadership Fellowship (#1193815).

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge and thank those who volunteered their time to complete the survey or participate in the interviews.

References (46)

  • C. Baukens et al.

    Sit-stand workstation for office workers: impact on sedentary time, productivity, comfort and feasability

  • V. Braun et al.

    Using thematic analysis in psychology

    Qual. Res. Psychol.

    (2006)
  • Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety

    OSH Answers Fact Sheets, Sit/Stand Desk

    (2016)
  • J.Y. Chau et al.

    Desk-based workers' perspectives on using sit-stand workstations: a qualitative analysis of the Stand@Work study

    BMC Publ. Health

    (2014)
  • A.H.Y. Chu et al.

    A systematic review and meta-analysis of workplace intervention strategies to reduce sedentary time in white-collar workers

    Obes. Rev.

    (2016)
  • N. Dutta et al.

    Experience of switching from a traditional sitting workstation to a sit-stand workstation in sedentary office workers

    Work

    (2015)
  • C.L. Edwardson et al.

    Effectiveness of the Stand More AT (SMArT) Work intervention: cluster randomised controlled trial

    BMJ

    (2018)
  • L. Gao 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)
  • A.C. Grunseit et al.

    Thinking on your feet": a qualitative evaluation of sit-stand desks in an Australian workplace

    BMC Publ. Health

    (2013)
  • N.T. Hadgraft et al.

    Perceptions of the acceptability and feasibility of reducing occupational sitting: review and thematic synthesis

    Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activ.

    (2018)
  • J. Hall et al.

    Implementation of sit-stand desks as a workplace health initiative: stakeholder views

    Int. J. Workplace Health Manag.

    (2019)
  • G.N. Healy et al.

    A cluster randomized controlled trial to reduce office workers' sitting time: effect on activity outcomes

    Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.

    (2016)
  • G.N. Healy et al.

    Supporting workers to sit less and move more through the web-based BeUpstanding program: protocol for a single-arm, repeated measures implementation study

    JMIR Research Protocols

    (2020)
  • Cited by (7)

    • Online office ergonomics training programs: A scoping review examining design and user-related outcomes

      2023, Safety Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      Another review of 119 policy documents relevant to office workers found no policy focusing on sedentary behaviour (Coenen et al., 2017), that has been identified as an emergent health and safety issue leading to an increased risk of adverse health outcomes (Straker et al., 2016). While only four training programs included information on sit-stand workstations as a way to address sedentary behaviour at work (Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, 2020c; Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, 2020b; Institute for Work and Health, 2015; Workplace Health and Safety Queensland, 2020), recent research showed that there is a large uptake of sit-stand workstations in workplaces (Zerguine et al., 2022), with an increased need of online training programs to support the appropriate usage of these desks (Zerguine et al., 2021). Future training programs need to ensure that the content is evidence-based using the most recent scientific research and address both workers' and workplace needs.

    • Factors impacting workplace investment in sit-stand workstations from the perspective of purchasing decision-makers

      2022, Applied Ergonomics
      Citation Excerpt :

      A total of 63% (n = 136) believed that the benefits of SSWs outweighed the costs, while 25% (n = 54) were not sure and 9% (n = 19) thought it too early to determine. Further results about the organisations that have invested in SSWs are described elsewhere (Zerguine et al., 2021). Univariate analysis using Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U test of workplaces characteristics associated with non-investment in SSWs (vs investment in SSWs) found workplaces not investing in SSWs were more likely to be private sector (79.6% vs. 43.5%) or of small/medium size (70.4% vs. 35.6%).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text