When it comes to sedentary behaviour modification, should people be told what to do? A randomized comparison trial among home-based office workers living in Ontario, Canada

• Published in: Translational behavioral medicine Vol. 14; no. 2; pp. 106 - 116
• Main Authors: Hiemstra, Madison, Dillon-Rossiter, Kirsten, Bartmann, Nina, Prapavessis, Harry, Rollo, Scott, Mitchell, Marc
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: US Oxford University Press 07.02.2024
• Subjects: Adult; Behavior Therapy; Demographic aspects; E-health; Evaluation; Female; Health aspects; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Occupational Health; Office workers; Ontario; Sedentary Behavior; Telecommuting; Time Factors; Workplace; Ontario; Canada; choice architecture; sedentary behaviour; office workers; behavioural economics; digital health; work from home
• ISSN: 1869-6716; 1613-9860
• DOI: 10.1093/tbm/ibad047

Abstract The effects of adding choice architecture to a theory-based (Health Action Process Approach; HAPA) sedentary intervention remain unknown. To investigate whether choice architecture enhances a theory-based sedentary behaviour reduction intervention in home-based office workers. A 4-week HAPA-based intervention was conducted in London, Canada. Choice architecture was tested as an enhancement via a two (group: ‘Choice of Intervention’ vs. ‘No Choice Intervention’) by two (time: Baseline vs. Week 4) factorial repeated measure randomized comparison design. Sedentary behaviour reduction strategies focussed on obtaining a sedentary break frequency (BF) of every 30–45 min with break durations (BD) of 2–3 min. BF, BD, sitting, standing, and moving time were objectively measured (activPAL4™) at both time points. Participants (n = 148) were 44.9 ± 11.4 years old and 72.3% female. BF and total sitting time showed a time effect (P < .001), where both groups improved over the 4 weeks; there were no significant differences between groups across time. BD, standing, and moving time had a significant group by time effect where the ‘No Choice’ group showed significant increases in BD (P < .001), standing (P = .006), and moving time (P < .001) over the 4 weeks. Augmenting a theory-based intervention with choice architecture resulted in change in some sedentary behaviours in at home office workers. Specifically, while BF increased for all participants, the ‘No Choice’ group exhibited greater changes for BD, standing, and moving time compared with the ‘Choice’ group. Overall, these changes exceeded the intervention BF and BD goals. Providing at-home office workers with strategies to stand-up more often, is a lost-cost method to increasing frequency of sitting breaks, standing, and moving time, as well as reducing time spent sitting. Lay Summary The use of behaviour change theories has proven to be successful in reducing the amount people sit. However, it is unknown whether getting people to choose how and when they get up from sitting is better than just telling them how and when. This study explored the difference in sitting patterns across two groups: those that got to choose how and when to break up their sitting and those that did not get to choose. The study measured how often participants took breaks from sitting, how long the breaks were, as well as total sitting, standing, and moving time in Canadian home-based office workers. These measures were taken at baseline and 4 weeks later. The study aimed to achieve sitting breaks every 30–45 min with those breaks being to 2–3 min. One hundred and forty-eight participants were enrolled (average age = 44.9; 72.3% female). All participants took breaks more frequently and decreased their total time spent sitting over the 4-week period regardless of group assignment. Though, participants in the ‘No Choice’ group increased the length of their breaks from sitting and the total time they stood and moved over the study period. Overall, sitting break changes exceeded the intervention break duration goals.