Background <p>To improve health outcomes, sit-stand desks have been recognized as an effective strategy for reducing sedentary behavior in the workplace. However, there’s a lack of knowledge on users’ experiences with these interventions. The current systematic review aimed to compile recent qualitative insights from participants on the acceptability of sit-stand desk interventions, identifying barriers and facilitators for their use.</p> Methods <p>Five electronic databases (PubMed, B-On, SportDiscus, APA PsycInfo, and Scopus) were searched until March 6th, 2025. Information on intervention description, data collection methods, and analysis were gathered. Thematic analysis identified recurring themes, organized using the Socio-Ecological Model, and then categorized into barriers and facilitators to sit-stand desk utilization.</p> Results <p>The research resulted in 524 studies, but only 19 were eligible for review. A thematic analysis was conducted, and 12 themes were found related to participants’ experiences with using sit-stand desks. Most studies identified “Health risks”, “Sit-stand desks’ characteristics”, and “Access” as barriers, while “Health benefits”, “Supporting factors”, and “Social support” were recognized as facilitators of sit-stand desk use. Additionally, themes such as “Habit”, “Knowledge”, “Work Routine”, and “Workplace norms/culture” were found to act as both barriers and facilitators depending on the specific context.</p> Conclusions <p>This systematic review examines participants’ subjective experience with sit-stand desks in workplace interventions. It was found that participants generally welcomed sit-stand desks to reduce sedentary behavior in the workplace. Overall, while sit-stand desks can reduce sitting time, future interventions must consider and address identified barriers to improve the sit-stand desk experience and promote healthier workplace environments.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Barriers and Facilitators of Workplace Sit-Stand Desk-Based Interventions: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Evidence

  • Miguel Perez Perdigão,
  • Sofia Moura Franco,
  • Marlene Nunes da Silva,
  • Pedro B. Júdice

摘要

Background

To improve health outcomes, sit-stand desks have been recognized as an effective strategy for reducing sedentary behavior in the workplace. However, there’s a lack of knowledge on users’ experiences with these interventions. The current systematic review aimed to compile recent qualitative insights from participants on the acceptability of sit-stand desk interventions, identifying barriers and facilitators for their use.

Methods

Five electronic databases (PubMed, B-On, SportDiscus, APA PsycInfo, and Scopus) were searched until March 6th, 2025. Information on intervention description, data collection methods, and analysis were gathered. Thematic analysis identified recurring themes, organized using the Socio-Ecological Model, and then categorized into barriers and facilitators to sit-stand desk utilization.

Results

The research resulted in 524 studies, but only 19 were eligible for review. A thematic analysis was conducted, and 12 themes were found related to participants’ experiences with using sit-stand desks. Most studies identified “Health risks”, “Sit-stand desks’ characteristics”, and “Access” as barriers, while “Health benefits”, “Supporting factors”, and “Social support” were recognized as facilitators of sit-stand desk use. Additionally, themes such as “Habit”, “Knowledge”, “Work Routine”, and “Workplace norms/culture” were found to act as both barriers and facilitators depending on the specific context.

Conclusions

This systematic review examines participants’ subjective experience with sit-stand desks in workplace interventions. It was found that participants generally welcomed sit-stand desks to reduce sedentary behavior in the workplace. Overall, while sit-stand desks can reduce sitting time, future interventions must consider and address identified barriers to improve the sit-stand desk experience and promote healthier workplace environments.