Sedentary LifestyleNCT02863731
Effect of Alternating Postures on Cognitive Performance
A study testing Alternating working postures, first day and Alternating working postures, second day in people with Sedentary Lifestyle, run by University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria at 1 site in Austria.
Trial summary
Prolonged sitting is a risk factor for cardiovascular and musculoskeletal diseases, diabetes, several types of cancer and all-cause mortality. In combination with static and awkward postures, the prevalence of musculoskeletal diseases can increase further. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 39 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Sedentary Lifestyle
- What is being tested?
- Alternating working postures, first day and Alternating working postures, second day
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 46 participants
- Where
- 1 siteAustria
- Study dates
- Jan 2014to Mar 2015
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 39 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Healthy Caucasian (no acute or chronic diseases)
- Normal weight or overweight (BMI: 18.5 - 30.0 kg/m²)
- Regular computer users
- Fluent German speakers
- Consented to participate
Who cannot join
- Obesity (BMI > 30.0 kg/m²)
- Experience in sit-to-stand workstations
- Acute or chronic diseases
- Inability to stand
- Visual impairments that had not been corrected
- Color blindness
- Regular heavy smokers (> 10 cigarettes /day)
- Not consented to participate
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Austria1 site
University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria
Linz, Upper Austria, 4020
About this study
Prolonged sitting is a risk factor for cardiovascular and musculoskeletal diseases, diabetes, several types of cancer and all-cause mortality. In combination with static and awkward postures, the prevalence of musculoskeletal diseases can increase further. Although the implementation of sit-to-stand or active workstations can help to reduce sitting time, improve physical activity at work and promote health benefits, it might also lead to changes in cognitive functions such as productivity. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the short-term effect of alternating working postures on cognitive performance for healthy people.
Read the detailed description
Measurements were made in a laboratory. They were made on two different days with an interval of 7 days between sessions. Laboratory tests were conducted in a controlled, simulated work-space located at the University of Applied Sciences Campus Linz. All laboratory measurements were made in a controlled laboratory at the campus site Linz of the University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria. Temperature, air flow, humidity, lighting conditions (artificial light only) and noise level were controlled and set to be consistent with the subjects' typical working environment.
During the laboratory measurements, subjects either stood or sat upright in an ergonomic office chair, according to the study protocol. Subjects were encouraged to work as fast and as accurately as they could. To ensure identical testing conditions between subjects and to not unduly influence physiological parameters such as heart rate variability (HRV), subjects were required to minimize excessive movement (e.g. standing up during the sitting periods).
In the first (initial) phase participants were familiarized with the study protocol. Sitting time and weekly physical activity were determined via the long version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ, only on the first day of measurement). Examples of each cognitive test implemented in the cognitive phase were executed according to their guidelines. A 30 minute break in a sitting posture was used to ascertain baseline heart-rate level. Baseline heart-rate was calculated after a 20 minute rest for a 5 minute interval.
In the second (cognitive) phase subjects participated in a test battery containing five blocks. Each block consisted of a working speed test (text editing task), an attentional test (d2R-test of attention) and a reaction time test (Stroop-test). These tests lasted for 30 minutes to fulfill recommendations regarding postural changes. To simulate "common" working conditions (computer based and non-computer based tasks), digital (text editing task, Stroop-test) as well as pen \& paper (d2R-test) versions of the implemented tests were used.
For the intervention group, the cognitive blocks were executed in an alternating posture (sit - stand - sit - stand - sit) either on the first or the second day of measurement (cross-over design). To generate control periods, this procedure was executed in an sitting posture only (sit - sit - sit - sit - sit) for the non-interventional day. For the control group, both days of measurement were executed in sitting posture only (sit - sit - sit - sit - sit ).
In the third (final) phase participants were asked to estimate their workload by means of the Task Load Index questionnaire developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA-TLX), followed by a 30 minutes resting phase in a sitting posture. During both 30 min resting phases (initial \& final) participants watched documentaries and were encouraged not to talk.
Heart-rate and trunk movements were measured from the start of the study protocol until the next morning by means of an mobile ECG-recorder.
- Conditions
- Sedentary Lifestyle
- Being tested
- Alternating working postures, first day, Alternating working postures, second day
- Keywords
- postural changes, alternating postures, Cognitive performance, Height-adjustable desk, Worksite
- Medical subject headings
- Sedentary Behavior
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Alternating working postures, first dayOther
On the first day of measurement participants execute five test battery trials in alternating postures (sit/stand/sit/stand/sit). On the second day of measurement participants execute the test battery in a sitting posture (sit/sit/sit/sit/sit).
Alternating working postures, second dayOther
On the first day of measurement participants execute five test battery trials in a sitting posture (sit/sit/sit/sit/sit). On the second day of measurement participants execute the test battery in alternating postures (sit/stand/sit/stand/sit).
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Alternating postures: first day | Experimental | Alternating body postures on the first day of measurement. Sitting body posture on the second day of measurement. Receives: Other: Alternating working postures, first day |
| Alternating postures: second day | Experimental | Alternating body postures on the second day of measurement. Sitting body posture on the first day of measurement. Receives: Other: Alternating working postures, second day |
| Control group | No intervention | Sitting body posture on both days of measurement. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Reaction time
Reaction time is a commonly measured parameter to describe mental states, fatigue or performance in ergonomic research. As the effect of alternating postures on reaction time is still unclear, a digital version of the Color-Word-Conflict-Stroop-Test has been implemented.
It contained 190 congruent, incongruent and neutral tasks and required approximately 10 min to simulate long-lasting monotonous office screen work. The reaction time was measured and recorded automatically. Outliers (values outside of the limits of 3 standard deviations) have been automatically eliminated. The Stroop-Test is characterized by a high test-retest reliability.
Due to the cross-over design of the study two days were necessary to determine the interventional effect. According to the group allocation the participants executed the Stroop-test either in an alternating or sitting posture. Differences in reaction time and accuracy between "alternating" and "sitting" days will be analyzed.
Measured: 2 experimental days
Attentional performance
As the effect of alternating postures on attentional performance is still unclear, an attentional performance test called "d2R-test of attention" has been implemented. The d2R-test was executed as a pen and paper version. Therefore, it enabled screen breaks during the test protocol and simulated paper-related office work. The d2R-Test is characterized by a high test-retest reliability and do not require any specific previous knowledge except of rudimentary language skills. Normative values for the d2R-test are available for different countries.
Attentional performance and accuracy were manually determined according to the d2R-guidelines.
Due to the cross-over design of the study two days were necessary to determine the interventional effect. According to the group allocation the participants executed the d2R-test either in an alternating or sitting posture. Differences in attentional performance and accuracy between "alternating" and "sitting" days will be analyzed.
Measured: 2 experimental days
Working speed
Physical efforts when performing standardized tests (e.g. standing or walking) can negatively influence cognitive parameters as well as working speed. To determine the effect of alternating postures on working speed a digital text editing task encouraging participants to fill in spaces in an ergonomic guideline text for 10 min was used.
Working speed (words per minute) and accuracy (relative error) have been manually calculated.
Due to the cross-over design of the study two days were necessary to determine the interventional effect. According to the group allocation the participants executed the text editing task either in an alternating or sitting posture. Differences in working speed between "alternating" and "sitting" days will be analyzed.
Measured: 2 experimental days
Workload perception
Sit-to-stand workstations can evoke positive as well as negative associations. A common method to rate workload perception is the NASA-TLX questionnaire (Task Load Index, National Aeronautics and Space Administration). For reasons of simplicity and unmodified sensitivity, the short version of this questionnaire (RTLX, raw task load index), consisting of six major items, was used. Influences on workload perception based on unweighted items in the RTLX were negated due to the cross-over design.
Due to the cross-over design of the study two days were necessary to determine the interventional effect. According to the group allocation the participants scored their perceived workload after executing several cognitive tests in an alternating or sitting posture. Differences in workload perception between "alternating" and "sitting" days will be analyzed.
Measured: 2 experimental days
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted11 Aug 2016 (estimated)
- Study startJan 2014
- Primary completionMar 2015
- Study completionMar 2015
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (10)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Sedentary LifestyleStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 46 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Vienna
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Bernhard Schwartz, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria
- Investigators
- Bernhard Schwartz, MSc, Study director, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02863731
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- AO-8735-2
- Other IDs
- 834185
- Status last verified
- Aug 2016
- First submitted
- 14 Jul 2016
- Last updated
- 17 Aug 2016
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Neuhaus M, Healy GN, Dunstan DW, Owen N, Eakin EG. Workplace sitting and height-adjustable workstations: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2014 Jan;46(1):30-40. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.09.009.
PubMed 24355669Commissaris DA, Konemann R, Hiemstra-van Mastrigt S, Burford EM, Botter J, Douwes M, Ellegast RP. Effects of a standing and three dynamic workstations on computer task performance and cognitive function tests. Appl Ergon. 2014 Nov;45(6):1570-8. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2014.05.003. Epub 2014 Jun 17.
PubMed 24951234Bates ME, Lemay EP Jr. The d2 Test of attention: construct validity and extensions in scoring techniques. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004 May;10(3):392-400. doi: 10.1017/S135561770410307X.
PubMed 15147597Best JR, Nagamatsu LS, Liu-Ambrose T. Improvements to executive function during exercise training predict maintenance of physical activity over the following year. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 May 27;8:353. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00353. eCollection 2014.
PubMed 24904387Van der Elst W, Van Boxtel MP, Van Breukelen GJ, Jolles J. The Stroop color-word test: influence of age, sex, and education; and normative data for a large sample across the adult age range. Assessment. 2006 Mar;13(1):62-79. doi: 10.1177/1073191105283427.
PubMed 16443719Lynch BM. Sedentary behavior and cancer: a systematic review of the literature and proposed biological mechanisms. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010 Nov;19(11):2691-709. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0815. Epub 2010 Sep 10.
PubMed 20833969Owen N, Sparling PB, Healy GN, Dunstan DW, Matthews CE. Sedentary behavior: emerging evidence for a new health risk. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010 Dec;85(12):1138-41. doi: 10.4065/mcp.2010.0444. No abstract available.
PubMed 21123641Brown WJ, Miller YD, Miller R. Sitting time and work patterns as indicators of overweight and obesity in Australian adults. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 Nov;27(11):1340-6. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0802426.
PubMed 14574344Schwartz B, Kapellusch JM, Schrempf A, Probst K, Haller M, Baca A. Effect of a novel two-desk sit-to-stand workplace (ACTIVE OFFICE) on sitting time, performance and physiological parameters: protocol for a randomized control trial. BMC Public Health. 2016 Jul 15;16:578. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3271-y.
PubMed 27422158Schwartz B, Kapellusch JM, Schrempf A, Probst K, Haller M, Baca A. Effect of alternating postures on cognitive performance for healthy people performing sedentary work. Ergonomics. 2018 Jun;61(6):778-795. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2017.1417642. Epub 2017 Dec 28.
PubMed 29235967
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 17 Aug 2016. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effect of Alternating Postures on Cognitive Performance
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02863731
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- AO-8735-2
- Conditions
- Sedentary Lifestyle
- Keywords
- postural changes, alternating postures, Cognitive performance, Height-adjustable desk, Worksite
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 46 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Applied Sciences Upper AustriaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Vienna
- Study start
- Jan 2014
- Primary completion
- Mar 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- Mar 2015 (actual)
- First posted
- 11 Aug 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Prolonged sitting is a risk factor for cardiovascular and musculoskeletal diseases, diabetes, several types of cancer and all-cause mortality. In combination with static and awkward postures, the prevalence of musculoskeletal diseases can increase further. Although the implementation of sit-to-stand or active workstations can help to reduce sitting time, improve physical activity at work and promote health benefits, it might also lead to changes in cognitive functions such as productivity. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the short-term effect of alternating working postures on cognitive performance for healthy people.
Detailed description
Measurements were made in a laboratory. They were made on two different days with an interval of 7 days between sessions. Laboratory tests were conducted in a controlled, simulated work-space located at the University of Applied Sciences Campus Linz. All laboratory measurements were made in a controlled laboratory at the campus site Linz of the University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria. Temperature, air flow, humidity, lighting conditions (artificial light only) and noise level were controlled and set to be consistent with the subjects' typical working environment.
During the laboratory measurements, subjects either stood or sat upright in an ergonomic office chair, according to the study protocol. Subjects were encouraged to work as fast and as accurately as they could. To ensure identical testing conditions between subjects and to not unduly influence physiological parameters such as heart rate variability (HRV), subjects were required to minimize excessive movement (e.g. standing up during the sitting periods).
In the first (initial) phase participants were familiarized with the study protocol. Sitting time and weekly physical activity were determined via the long version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ, only on the first day of measurement). Examples of each cognitive test implemented in the cognitive phase were executed according to their guidelines. A 30 minute break in a sitting posture was used to ascertain baseline heart-rate level. Baseline heart-rate was calculated after a 20 minute rest for a 5 minute interval.
In the second (cognitive) phase subjects participated in a test battery containing five blocks. Each block consisted of a working speed test (text editing task), an attentional test (d2R-test of attention) and a reaction time test (Stroop-test). These tests lasted for 30 minutes to fulfill recommendations regarding postural changes. To simulate "common" working conditions (computer based and non-computer based tasks), digital (text editing task, Stroop-test) as well as pen \& paper (d2R-test) versions of the implemented tests were used.
For the intervention group, the cognitive blocks were executed in an alternating posture (sit - stand - sit - stand - sit) either on the first or the second day of measurement (cross-over design). To generate control periods, this procedure was executed in an sitting posture only (sit - sit - sit - sit - sit) for the non-interventional day. For the control group, both days of measurement were executed in sitting posture only (sit - sit - sit - sit - sit ).
In the third (final) phase participants were asked to estimate their workload by means of the Task Load Index questionnaire developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA-TLX), followed by a 30 minutes resting phase in a sitting posture. During both 30 min resting phases (initial \& final) participants watched documentaries and were encouraged not to talk.
Heart-rate and trunk movements were measured from the start of the study protocol until the next morning by means of an mobile ECG-recorder.
Study design
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Alternating postures: first day | Experimental | Other: Alternating working postures, first dayAlternating body postures on the first day of measurement. Sitting body posture on the second day of measurement. |
| Alternating postures: second day | Experimental | Other: Alternating working postures, second dayAlternating body postures on the second day of measurement. Sitting body posture on the first day of measurement. |
| Control group | No intervention | –Sitting body posture on both days of measurement. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 39 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Healthy Caucasian (no acute or chronic diseases)
- Normal weight or overweight (BMI: 18.5 - 30.0 kg/m²)
- Regular computer users
- Fluent German speakers
- Consented to participate
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Obesity (BMI > 30.0 kg/m²)
- Experience in sit-to-stand workstations
- Acute or chronic diseases
- Inability to stand
- Visual impairments that had not been corrected
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Alternating working postures, first dayOn the first day of measurement participants execute five test battery trials in alternating postures (sit/stand/sit/stand/sit). On the second day of measurement participants execute the test battery in a sitting posture (sit/sit/sit/sit/sit). | Other | Alternating postures: first day |
| Alternating working postures, second dayOn the first day of measurement participants execute five test battery trials in a sitting posture (sit/sit/sit/sit/sit). On the second day of measurement participants execute the test battery in alternating postures (sit/stand/sit/stand/sit). | Other | Alternating postures: second day |
Primary outcome
Reaction time
Time frame: 2 experimental days
Reaction time is a commonly measured parameter to describe mental states, fatigue or performance in ergonomic research. As the effect of alternating postures on reaction time is still unclear, a digital version of the Color-Word-Conflict-Stroop-Test has been implemented. It contained 190 congruent, incongruent and neutral tasks and required approximately 10 min to simulate long-lasting monotonous office screen work. The reaction time was measured and recorded automatically. Outliers (values outside of the limits of 3 standard deviations) have been automatically eliminated. The Stroop-Test is characterized by a high test-retest reliability. Due to the cross-over design of the study two days were necessary to determine the interventional effect. According to the group allocation the participants executed the Stroop-test either in an alternating or sitting posture. Differences in reaction time and accuracy between "alternating" and "sitting" days will be analyzed.
Attentional performance
Time frame: 2 experimental days
As the effect of alternating postures on attentional performance is still unclear, an attentional performance test called "d2R-test of attention" has been implemented. The d2R-test was executed as a pen and paper version. Therefore, it enabled screen breaks during the test protocol and simulated paper-related office work. The d2R-Test is characterized by a high test-retest reliability and do not require any specific previous knowledge except of rudimentary language skills. Normative values for the d2R-test are available for different countries. Attentional performance and accuracy were manually determined according to the d2R-guidelines. Due to the cross-over design of the study two days were necessary to determine the interventional effect. According to the group allocation the participants executed the d2R-test either in an alternating or sitting posture. Differences in attentional performance and accuracy between "alternating" and "sitting" days will be analyzed.
Working speed
Time frame: 2 experimental days
Physical efforts when performing standardized tests (e.g. standing or walking) can negatively influence cognitive parameters as well as working speed. To determine the effect of alternating postures on working speed a digital text editing task encouraging participants to fill in spaces in an ergonomic guideline text for 10 min was used. Working speed (words per minute) and accuracy (relative error) have been manually calculated. Due to the cross-over design of the study two days were necessary to determine the interventional effect. According to the group allocation the participants executed the text editing task either in an alternating or sitting posture. Differences in working speed between "alternating" and "sitting" days will be analyzed.
Workload perception
Time frame: 2 experimental days
Sit-to-stand workstations can evoke positive as well as negative associations. A common method to rate workload perception is the NASA-TLX questionnaire (Task Load Index, National Aeronautics and Space Administration). For reasons of simplicity and unmodified sensitivity, the short version of this questionnaire (RTLX, raw task load index), consisting of six major items, was used. Influences on workload perception based on unweighted items in the RTLX were negated due to the cross-over design. Due to the cross-over design of the study two days were necessary to determine the interventional effect. According to the group allocation the participants scored their perceived workload after executing several cognitive tests in an alternating or sitting posture. Differences in workload perception between "alternating" and "sitting" days will be analyzed.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 17 Aug 2016.
- Background: PubMed 24355669Neuhaus M, Healy GN, Dunstan DW, Owen N, Eakin EG. Workplace sitting and height-adjustable workstations: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2014 Jan;46(1):30-40. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.09.009.
- Background: PubMed 24951234Commissaris DA, Konemann R, Hiemstra-van Mastrigt S, Burford EM, Botter J, Douwes M, Ellegast RP. Effects of a standing and three dynamic workstations on computer task performance and cognitive function tests. Appl Ergon. 2014 Nov;45(6):1570-8. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2014.05.003. Epub 2014 Jun 17.
- Background: PubMed 15147597Bates ME, Lemay EP Jr. The d2 Test of attention: construct validity and extensions in scoring techniques. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004 May;10(3):392-400. doi: 10.1017/S135561770410307X.
- Background: PubMed 24904387Best JR, Nagamatsu LS, Liu-Ambrose T. Improvements to executive function during exercise training predict maintenance of physical activity over the following year. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 May 27;8:353. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00353. eCollection 2014.
- Background: PubMed 16443719Van der Elst W, Van Boxtel MP, Van Breukelen GJ, Jolles J. The Stroop color-word test: influence of age, sex, and education; and normative data for a large sample across the adult age range. Assessment. 2006 Mar;13(1):62-79. doi: 10.1177/1073191105283427.
- Background: PubMed 20833969Lynch BM. Sedentary behavior and cancer: a systematic review of the literature and proposed biological mechanisms. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010 Nov;19(11):2691-709. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0815. Epub 2010 Sep 10.
- Background: PubMed 21123641Owen N, Sparling PB, Healy GN, Dunstan DW, Matthews CE. Sedentary behavior: emerging evidence for a new health risk. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010 Dec;85(12):1138-41. doi: 10.4065/mcp.2010.0444. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 14574344Brown WJ, Miller YD, Miller R. Sitting time and work patterns as indicators of overweight and obesity in Australian adults. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 Nov;27(11):1340-6. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0802426.
- Background: PubMed 27422158Schwartz B, Kapellusch JM, Schrempf A, Probst K, Haller M, Baca A. Effect of a novel two-desk sit-to-stand workplace (ACTIVE OFFICE) on sitting time, performance and physiological parameters: protocol for a randomized control trial. BMC Public Health. 2016 Jul 15;16:578. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3271-y.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 29235967Schwartz B, Kapellusch JM, Schrempf A, Probst K, Haller M, Baca A. Effect of alternating postures on cognitive performance for healthy people performing sedentary work. Ergonomics. 2018 Jun;61(6):778-795. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2017.1417642. Epub 2017 Dec 28.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Sedentary Lifestyle
RecruitingObservational study
Pregnancy 24/7 Offspring Study
Healthy
Recruiting
Impact of a Tailored Digital Intervention on Sedentary Behaviour and Physical Health in Long-term Cardiac Rehabilitation Patients
Cardiovascular Diseases (CVD), Coronary Disease
Active, not recruiting
Future School of Comprehensive Well-Being
Learning, Comprehensive Wellbeing
Enrolling by invitation
Recreational Badminton, Sleep and Melatonin
Sedentary Behavior
RecruitingEarly Phase 1
Role of ET-1, Physical Activity, and Sedentary Behavior in Microvascular Dysfunction Following GDM
Gestational Diabetes, Endothelial Dysfunction
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Bernhard Schwartz, MSc study director
University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Alternating working postures, first day and Alternating working postures, second day in people with Sedentary Lifestyle, run by University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria at 1 site in Austria.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 8 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 17 Aug 2016. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Austria. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Reaction time (time frame: 2 experimental days). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02863731, which also lists 10 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 17 Aug 2016.