A Private Sector Rapid Care Analysis toolkit (PS RCA) is a rapid process for businesses and workers to understand the heavy responsibility and long hours of unpaid care and domestic work (UCDW), usually done by women workers. The guide also makes the case for why private sector companies should address UCDW as part of workers’ rights and human rights, and it outlines the benefits to businesses of taking action. PS RCA discussions clarify how employment policies, workplace culture and practices may make unpaid care and domestic work more challenging for workers, with hidden costs for company operations. The PS RCA process helps identify opportunities for company action and builds commitment to change. The step-by-step guide is easy to follow for businesses, women’s rights and feminist organisations, civil society organisations, trade unions and other interested parties. The two accompanying webinars provide training and guidance for managers, champions and advocates on how to conduct a PS RCA (Webinar 1), and for facilitators on how to conduct the focus group exercises with workers (Webinar 2). This PS RCA Toolkit complements the original Participatory Methodology: Rapid Care Analysis that focuses on community and local government roles in addressing women’s heavy and unequal share of unpaid care and domestic work. The toolkit also complements broader gender equity audits and strategies for business. Get in touch: If you would like to make use of the toolkit, have any questions on the process; and/or would like a PowerPoint/ open version of the webinars, please contact policyandpractice@oxfam.org.uk’

Context: Many countries and institutions have adopted policies to promote healthier food and drink availability in various settings, including public sector workplaces. Objective: The objective of this review was to systematically synthesize evidence on barriers and facilitators to implementation of and compliance with healthy food and drink policies aimed at the general adult population in public sector workplaces. Data sources: Nine scientific databases, 9 grey literature sources, and government websites in key English-speaking countries along with reference lists. Data extraction: All identified records (N = 8559) were assessed for eligibility. Studies reporting on barriers and facilitators were included irrespective of study design and methods used but were excluded if they were published before 2000 or in a non-English language. Data analysis: Forty-one studies were eligible for inclusion, mainly from Australia, the United States, and Canada. The most common workplace settings were healthcare facilities, sports and recreation centers, and government agencies. Interviews and surveys were the predominant methods of data collection. Methodological aspects were assessed with the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Qualitative Studies Checklist. Generally, there was poor reporting of data collection and analysis methods. Thematic synthesis identified 4 themes: (1) a ratified policy as the foundation of a successful implementation plan; (2) food providers' acceptance of implementation is rooted in positive stakeholder relationships, recognizing opportunities, and taking ownership; (3) creating customer demand for healthier options may relieve tension between policy objectives and business goals; and (4) food supply may limit the ability of food providers to implement the policy. Conclusions: Findings suggest that although vendors encounter challenges, there are also factors that support healthy food and drink policy implementation in public sector workplaces. Understanding barriers and facilitators to successful policy implementation will significantly benefit stakeholders interested or engaging in healthy food and drink policy development and implementation. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42021246340.

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.

Background: Sedentary time in workplaces has been linked to increased risks of chronic occupational diseases, obesity, and overall mortality. Currently, there is a burgeoning research interest in the implementation of multicomponent interventions aimed at decreasing sedentary time among office workers, which encompass a comprehensive amalgamation of individual, organizational, and environmental strategies. Objective: This meta-analysis aims at evaluating the effectiveness of multicomponent interventions to mitigate occupational sedentary behavior at work compared with no intervention. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from database inception until March 2023 to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of multicomponent interventions on occupational sedentary behavior among office-based workers. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias by using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. The average intervention effect on sedentary time was calculated using Stata 15.1. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs were used to calculate the continuous variables. Subgroup analyses were performed to determine whether sit-stand workstation, feedback, and prompt elements played an important role in multicomponent interventions. Further, the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Results: A total of 11 RCTs involving 1894 patients were included in the analysis. Five studies were rated as low risk of bias, 2 as unclear risk of bias, and 4 as high risk. The meta-analysis results showed that compared with no intervention, multicomponent interventions significantly reduced occupational sitting time (MD=-52.25 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -73.06 to -31.44; P<.001) and occupational prolonged sitting time (MD=-32.63 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -51.93 to -13.33; P=.001) and increased occupational standing time (MD=44.30 min/8-h workday, 95% CI 23.11-65.48; P<.001), whereas no significant differences were found in occupational stepping time (P=.06). The results of subgroup analysis showed that compared with multicomponent interventions without installment of sit-stand workstations, multicomponent interventions with sit-stand workstation installment showed better effects for reducing occupational sitting time (MD=-71.95 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -92.94 to -51.15), increasing occupational standing time (MD=66.56 min/8-h workday, 95% CI 43.45-89.67), and reducing occupational prolonged sitting time (MD=-47.05 min/8-h workday, 95% CI -73.66 to -20.43). The GRADE evidence summary showed that all 4 outcomes were rated as moderate certainty. Conclusions: Multicomponent interventions, particularly those incorporating sit-stand workstations for all participants, are effective at reducing workplace sedentary time. However, given their cost, further research is needed to understand the effectiveness of low-cost/no-cost multicomponent interventions.