Background: Many studies have attempted to mitigate the negative health consequences of sedentary behavior (SB) in the work environment using standing desks. However, no studies have explored the use of standing desks in the home. Purpose: To evaluate interest, factors influencing desk usage, and acceptability of a low-cost standing desk in the home. Methods: Participants (adults aged 18-65 years living in university residential areas) received a low-cost standing desk, and completed online surveys at baseline and 4 weeks to assess leisure SB. After 4 weeks, participants completed a phone interview to assess level of engagement and acceptability. A follow-up interview was conducted at 6 months. A descriptive content analysis was conducted. Results: A total of 71 participants were recruited, with 55 and 49 participants completing the 4-week and 6-month interview, respectively. At 4 weeks, there was a self-reported decline in weekday leisure SB (P < .05), but not on weekend days. Approximately 75% of interviewed participants reported using the desk every week. After 6 months, 21 participants (30%) were still using the desk. Conclusion: This study indicates interest in using standing desks in the home. Future research could examine the behavioral and health impact of SB interventions in this setting.
Julia Rudecki, Katie Weatherson and Guy Faulkner
Katie Weatherson, Lira Yun, Kelly Wunderlich, Eli Puterman and Guy Faulkner
Background: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a method of collecting behavioral data in real time. The purpose of this study was to examine EMA compliance, identify factors predicting compliance, assess criterion validity of, and reactivity to, using EMA in a workplace intervention study. Methods: Forty-five adults (91.1% female, 39.7 [9.6] y) were recruited for a workplace standing desk intervention. Participants received 5 surveys each day for 5 workdays via smartphone application. EMA items assessed current position (sitting/standing/stepping). EMA responses were time matched to objectively measured time in each position before and after each prompt. Multilevel logistic regression models estimated factors influencing EMA response. Cohen kappa measured interrater agreement between EMA-reported and device-measured position. Reactivity was assessed by comparing objectively measured sitting/standing/stepping in the 15 minutes before and after each EMA prompt using multilevel repeated-measures models. Results: Participants answered 81.4% of EMA prompts. Differences in compliance differed by position. There was substantial agreement between EMA-reported and device-measured position (κ = .713; P < .001). Following the EMA prompt, participants sat 0.87 minutes more than before the prompt (P < .01). Conclusion: The use of EMA is a valid assessment of position when used in an intervention to reduce occupational sitting and did not appear to disrupt sitting in favor of the targeted outcome.