Absence of conflict of interest.
Citation
Highlights
-
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of standing desks on body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and workplace satisfaction.
-
The authors used a randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of standing desks on BMI and waist circumference and a pre-post study design with the treatment group only to assess workplace satisfaction. The authors collected BMI and waist circumference measurements at baseline and six months after the standing desks were installed. The authors administered a survey to those in the treatment group at baseline and at six months after the standing desks were installed to assess workplace satisfaction.
-
The study found no statistically significant relationships between standing desks and employee health outcomes or workplace satisfaction.
-
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the random assignment process was not truly random and did not account for other factors that could have affected the difference between the treatment and control groups. Moreover, there was a confounding factor in the treatment group. Those in the treatment group received free resources to track their caloric expenditures. This means we would not be confident that any estimated effects would be attributable to the use of a standing desk; other factors would likely have contributed.
Intervention Examined
Standing Desks
Features of the Intervention
Standing desks are adjustable-height workstations that enable employees to work from a seated or standing position, allowing for a more physically active work environment.
Features of the Study
The authors used a randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of standing desks on employees’ health outcomes. The study sample comprised 35 hospital employees at a large military medical facility in the Pacific. The participants were randomly assigned to study condition—24 to the treatment group and 11 to the control group. All study participants were overweight and described sedentary behaviors of six or more hours per workday. Those in the treatment group received a standing desk for six months. They also received an antifatigue mat and instructions on how to use the standing desk and were encouraged to gradually increase the standing desk configuration from a starting target of 10 minutes per hour. Treatment group members also received information about free resources to track their calorie expenditure and desk use. Participants in the control group did not receive a standing desk nor the other supports and information. The authors surveyed participants about their satisfaction with the workplace and collected BMI and waist circumference measurements at baseline and six months after the standing desks were installed. The authors compared the change in health outcomes for the treatment and control groups and the change in workplace satisfaction for the treatment group only.
Findings
-
Health and safety. The study found no statistically significant relationships between a standing desk and employee health outcomes.
-
Attitudes. The study found no statistically significant relationship between a standing desk and workplace satisfaction.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
Group assignment was not random because the last 15 participants who enrolled in the study were assigned to the treatment group. The authors also did not account for preexisting differences between the groups before participation. These preexisting differences between the groups—and not the standing desk—could explain any observed differences in outcomes.
The treatment group received not only a standing desk but also information about free resources to track their caloric expenditures. Therefore, this study cannot distinguish the impact of the standing desk alone on health outcomes.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors did not account for other factors that could have affected the difference between the treatment and control groups. Moreover, the provision of a standing desk to the treatment group was confounded with their receipt of free resources to track their caloric expenditures. This means we would not be confident that any estimated effects would be attributable to the use of a standing desk; other factors would likely have contributed.