BackgroundActive workstations have been proposed as a feasible approach for reducing occupational sedentary time. This study used a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess and compare the overall efficacy of active workstation interventions according to type and concomitant strategy for reducing work-specific sitting time in office workers.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from database inception until May 2022 to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of active workstations with or without concomitant strategies for reducing occupational sedentary time in office workers. The risk of bias of the RCTs included in this study was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook. An NMA with STATA 15.1 was used to construct a network diagram, league figures, and the final surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsA total of 23 eligible studies including eight different types of interventions with 1428 office workers were included. NMA results showed that compared to a typical desk, multicomponent intervention (standardized mean difference (SMD) = - 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 2.17, - 0.82; SUCRA = 72.4%), sit-stand workstation + promotion (Reminders of rest breaks, posture variation, or incidental office activity) (SMD = - 1.49; 95%CI - 2.42, - 0.55; SUCRA = 71.0%), treadmill workstation + promotion (SMD = - 1.29; 95%CI - 2.51, - 0.07; SUCRA = 61.6%), and sit-stand workstation (SMD = - 1.10, 95%CI - 1.64, - 0.56; SUCRA = 50.2%) were effective in reducing occupational sedentary time for office workers.ConclusionsMulticomponent intervention, sit-stand workstation + promotion, treadmill workstation + promotion, and sit-stand workstation appear to be effective in reducing work-specific sedentary time for office workers. Furthermore, multicomponent interventions and active workstations + promotion better reduced work-specific sedentary time than active workstation alone. However, the overall certainty of the evidence was low.

Sedentary behaviour research is rapidly growing. Scoping reviews are important to inform policy and practice.The aim of this scoping a review was to map the available evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of sedentary behaviour research on adults (≥18 years), within the phases of the behavioural epidemiology framework, and to identify bibliometric parameters of studies included in this review. Nine bibliographic databases were searched. Studies were screened and relevant information (e.g., general information, inclusion criteria, findings and reporting quality) was extracted independently by two authors. In total, 108 systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of sedentary behaviour research in adults (≥18 years) were included. Most papers (91.7%) were published between 2010 and 2020. Studies on the relationship of sedentary behaviour with health (53.7%) and interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour (25.9%) were most common. Forty-five (41.7%) studies reported quality assessment with categorization, and 887 out of 1268 (70%) included primary studies were categorized having moderate-to-high quality. Sedentary behaviour research on adults (≥18 years) has grown exponentially in the last decade and demonstrates strength in several stages of the behavioural epidemiology framework. However, more research should focus on the measurement, prevalence/epidemiology and determinants of sedentary behaviour, to better inform policy development.