NCT02863731

Brief Summary

Prolonged sitting is a risk factor for cardiovascular and musculoskeletal diseases, diabetes, several types of cancer and all-cause mortality. In combination with static and awkward postures, the prevalence of musculoskeletal diseases can increase further. Although the implementation of sit-to-stand or active workstations can help to reduce sitting time, improve physical activity at work and promote health benefits, it might also lead to changes in cognitive functions such as productivity. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the short-term effect of alternating working postures on cognitive performance for healthy people.

Trial Health

87
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
46

participants targeted

Target at P25-P50 for not_applicable

Timeline
Completed

Started Jan 2014

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
completed

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

Study Start

First participant enrolled

January 1, 2014

Completed
1.2 years until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

March 1, 2015

Completed
Same day until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

March 1, 2015

Completed
1.4 years until next milestone

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

July 14, 2016

Completed
28 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

August 11, 2016

Completed
Last Updated

August 17, 2016

Status Verified

August 1, 2016

Enrollment Period

1.2 years

First QC Date

July 14, 2016

Last Update Submit

August 16, 2016

Conditions

Sedentary Lifestyle

Keywords

postural changesalternating posturesCognitive performanceHeight-adjustable deskWorksite

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (4)

  • Reaction time

    Reaction time is a commonly measured parameter to describe mental states, fatigue or performance in ergonomic research. As the effect of alternating postures on reaction time is still unclear, a digital version of the Color-Word-Conflict-Stroop-Test has been implemented. It contained 190 congruent, incongruent and neutral tasks and required approximately 10 min to simulate long-lasting monotonous office screen work. The reaction time was measured and recorded automatically. Outliers (values outside of the limits of 3 standard deviations) have been automatically eliminated. The Stroop-Test is characterized by a high test-retest reliability. Due to the cross-over design of the study two days were necessary to determine the interventional effect. According to the group allocation the participants executed the Stroop-test either in an alternating or sitting posture. Differences in reaction time and accuracy between "alternating" and "sitting" days will be analyzed.

    2 experimental days

  • Attentional performance

    As the effect of alternating postures on attentional performance is still unclear, an attentional performance test called "d2R-test of attention" has been implemented. The d2R-test was executed as a pen and paper version. Therefore, it enabled screen breaks during the test protocol and simulated paper-related office work. The d2R-Test is characterized by a high test-retest reliability and do not require any specific previous knowledge except of rudimentary language skills. Normative values for the d2R-test are available for different countries. Attentional performance and accuracy were manually determined according to the d2R-guidelines. Due to the cross-over design of the study two days were necessary to determine the interventional effect. According to the group allocation the participants executed the d2R-test either in an alternating or sitting posture. Differences in attentional performance and accuracy between "alternating" and "sitting" days will be analyzed.

    2 experimental days

  • Working speed

    Physical efforts when performing standardized tests (e.g. standing or walking) can negatively influence cognitive parameters as well as working speed. To determine the effect of alternating postures on working speed a digital text editing task encouraging participants to fill in spaces in an ergonomic guideline text for 10 min was used. Working speed (words per minute) and accuracy (relative error) have been manually calculated. Due to the cross-over design of the study two days were necessary to determine the interventional effect. According to the group allocation the participants executed the text editing task either in an alternating or sitting posture. Differences in working speed between "alternating" and "sitting" days will be analyzed.

    2 experimental days

  • Workload perception

    Sit-to-stand workstations can evoke positive as well as negative associations. A common method to rate workload perception is the NASA-TLX questionnaire (Task Load Index, National Aeronautics and Space Administration). For reasons of simplicity and unmodified sensitivity, the short version of this questionnaire (RTLX, raw task load index), consisting of six major items, was used. Influences on workload perception based on unweighted items in the RTLX were negated due to the cross-over design. Due to the cross-over design of the study two days were necessary to determine the interventional effect. According to the group allocation the participants scored their perceived workload after executing several cognitive tests in an alternating or sitting posture. Differences in workload perception between "alternating" and "sitting" days will be analyzed.

    2 experimental days

Other Outcomes (1)

  • Body movements

    2 experimental days

Study Arms (3)

Alternating postures: first day

EXPERIMENTAL

Alternating body postures on the first day of measurement. Sitting body posture on the second day of measurement.

Other: Alternating working postures, first day

Alternating postures: second day

EXPERIMENTAL

Alternating body postures on the second day of measurement. Sitting body posture on the first day of measurement.

Other: Alternating working postures, second day

Control group

NO INTERVENTION

Sitting body posture on both days of measurement.

Interventions

Alternating working postures, first dayOTHER

On the first day of measurement participants execute five test battery trials in alternating postures (sit/stand/sit/stand/sit). On the second day of measurement participants execute the test battery in a sitting posture (sit/sit/sit/sit/sit).

Alternating postures: first day
Alternating working postures, second dayOTHER

On the first day of measurement participants execute five test battery trials in a sitting posture (sit/sit/sit/sit/sit). On the second day of measurement participants execute the test battery in alternating postures (sit/stand/sit/stand/sit).

Alternating postures: second day

Eligibility Criteria

Age18 Years - 39 Years
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersYes
Age GroupsAdult (18-64)

You may qualify if:

  • Healthy Caucasian (no acute or chronic diseases)
  • Normal weight or overweight (BMI: 18.5 - 30.0 kg/m²)
  • Regular computer users
  • Fluent German speakers
  • Consented to participate

You may not qualify if:

  • Obesity (BMI \> 30.0 kg/m²)
  • Experience in sit-to-stand workstations
  • Acute or chronic diseases
  • Inability to stand
  • Visual impairments that had not been corrected
  • Color blindness
  • Regular heavy smokers (\> 10 cigarettes /day)
  • Not consented to participate

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria

Linz, Upper Austria, 4020, Austria

Location

Related Publications (10)

  • Neuhaus M, Healy GN, Dunstan DW, Owen N, Eakin EG. Workplace sitting and height-adjustable workstations: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2014 Jan;46(1):30-40. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.09.009.

    PMID: 24355669BACKGROUND

  • Commissaris DA, Konemann R, Hiemstra-van Mastrigt S, Burford EM, Botter J, Douwes M, Ellegast RP. Effects of a standing and three dynamic workstations on computer task performance and cognitive function tests. Appl Ergon. 2014 Nov;45(6):1570-8. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2014.05.003. Epub 2014 Jun 17.

    PMID: 24951234BACKGROUND

  • Bates ME, Lemay EP Jr. The d2 Test of attention: construct validity and extensions in scoring techniques. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004 May;10(3):392-400. doi: 10.1017/S135561770410307X.

    PMID: 15147597BACKGROUND

  • Best JR, Nagamatsu LS, Liu-Ambrose T. Improvements to executive function during exercise training predict maintenance of physical activity over the following year. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 May 27;8:353. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00353. eCollection 2014.

    PMID: 24904387BACKGROUND

  • Van der Elst W, Van Boxtel MP, Van Breukelen GJ, Jolles J. The Stroop color-word test: influence of age, sex, and education; and normative data for a large sample across the adult age range. Assessment. 2006 Mar;13(1):62-79. doi: 10.1177/1073191105283427.

    PMID: 16443719BACKGROUND

  • Lynch BM. Sedentary behavior and cancer: a systematic review of the literature and proposed biological mechanisms. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010 Nov;19(11):2691-709. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0815. Epub 2010 Sep 10.

    PMID: 20833969BACKGROUND

  • Owen N, Sparling PB, Healy GN, Dunstan DW, Matthews CE. Sedentary behavior: emerging evidence for a new health risk. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010 Dec;85(12):1138-41. doi: 10.4065/mcp.2010.0444. No abstract available.

    PMID: 21123641BACKGROUND

  • Brown WJ, Miller YD, Miller R. Sitting time and work patterns as indicators of overweight and obesity in Australian adults. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 Nov;27(11):1340-6. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0802426.

    PMID: 14574344BACKGROUND

  • Schwartz B, Kapellusch JM, Schrempf A, Probst K, Haller M, Baca A. Effect of a novel two-desk sit-to-stand workplace (ACTIVE OFFICE) on sitting time, performance and physiological parameters: protocol for a randomized control trial. BMC Public Health. 2016 Jul 15;16:578. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3271-y.

    PMID: 27422158BACKGROUND

  • Schwartz B, Kapellusch JM, Schrempf A, Probst K, Haller M, Baca A. Effect of alternating postures on cognitive performance for healthy people performing sedentary work. Ergonomics. 2018 Jun;61(6):778-795. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2017.1417642. Epub 2017 Dec 28.

    PMID: 29235967DERIVED

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Sedentary Behavior

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Behavior

Study Officials

  • Bernhard Schwartz, MSc

    University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria

    STUDY DIRECTOR

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
not applicable
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
NONE
Intervention Model
CROSSOVER
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
PI Title
Research Associate

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

July 14, 2016

First Posted

August 11, 2016

Study Start

January 1, 2014

Primary Completion

March 1, 2015

Study Completion

March 1, 2015

Last Updated

August 17, 2016

Record last verified: 2016-08

Data Sharing

IPD Sharing
Will not share

Locations

AU(1)