IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i5p1713-d328957.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Standing Meetings Are Feasible and Effective in Reducing Sitting Time among Office Workers—Walking Meetings Are Not: Mixed-Methods Results on the Feasibility and Effectiveness of Active Meetings Based on Data from the “Take a Stand!” Study

Author

Listed:
  • Ida H Danquah

    (National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, 1455 Copenhagen, Denmark)

  • Janne S Tolstrup

    (National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, 1455 Copenhagen, Denmark)

Abstract

Active meetings (standing or walking) have the potential to reduce sitting time among office workers. The aim of the present study was to explore the feasibility and effectiveness of standing and walking meetings. The “Take a Stand!” study was a cluster-randomized trial, consisting of multiple components including the possibility of active meetings. Analyses were based on the 173 participants in the intervention group. Feasibility was evaluated by questionnaire and interview data from participants, ambassadors and leaders. Effectiveness was assessed as the change in objectively measured sitting time from baseline to 3 months follow-up. Regular standing meetings were implemented at all offices and were generally popular, as they were perceived as more effective and focused. In contrast, only a few walking meetings were completed, and these were generally associated with several barriers and perceived as ineffective. Participants who participated in standing meetings on a regular basis had 59 min less sitting per 8 h workday (95%CI −101;−17) compared to participants who did not participate in standing meetings at all. Walking meeting participation was not significantly associated with changes in sitting time, likely due to the low number of employees who used this option. This explorative study concludes that standing meetings in office workplaces were feasible and well-liked by the employees, and having frequent standing meetings was associated with reduced sitting time. In contrast, walking meetings were unfeasible and less liked, and thus had no effect on sitting time.

Suggested Citation

  • Ida H Danquah & Janne S Tolstrup, 2020. "Standing Meetings Are Feasible and Effective in Reducing Sitting Time among Office Workers—Walking Meetings Are Not: Mixed-Methods Results on the Feasibility and Effectiveness of Active Meetings Based," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-7, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:5:p:1713-:d:328957
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/5/1713/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/5/1713/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louise Mansfield & Jennifer Hall & Lee Smith & Molly Rasch & Emily Reeves & Stephen Dewitt & Benjamin Gardner, 2018. "“Could you sit down please?” A qualitative analysis of employees’ experiences of standing in normally-seated workplace meetings," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-16, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stuart J.H. Biddle & Jason A. Bennie & Katrien De Cocker & David Dunstan & Paul A. Gardiner & Genevieve N. Healy & Brigid Lynch & Neville Owen & Charlotte Brakenridge & Wendy Brown & Matthew Buman & B, 2019. "Controversies in the Science of Sedentary Behaviour and Health: Insights, Perspectives and Future Directions from the 2018 Queensland Sedentary Behaviour Think Tank," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-20, November.
    2. Lidewij R Renaud & Erwin M Speklé & Allard J van der Beek & Hidde P van der Ploeg & H Roeline Pasman & Maaike A Huysmans, 2020. "The user and non-user perspective: Experiences of office workers with long-term access to sit-stand workstations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-20, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:5:p:1713-:d:328957. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.