MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012464887

StandUP UBC: Impact of a low-cost standing desk on occupational fatigue and work engagement

2019· article· en· W3012464887 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kelly Wunderlich, Katie A. Weatherson, Guy Faulkner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport (SCAPPS refereed abstracts repository) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSittingWork engagementDeskPhysical therapyWork (physics)MedicineRandomized controlled trialBaseline (sea)PsychologyEngineeringSurgeryPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The StandUP UBC trial demonstrated that low-cost standing desk converters reduced sitting by 42 mins/day after 3 months. This secondary analysis aimed to assess the impact of providing these low-cost standing desks on occupational fatigue and work engagement. Methods: Forty-eight office-based workers were recruited for a registered RCT with a waitlist control. The treatment group received a cardboard, low-cost standing desk converter, and recommendations for use. Primary outcomes were objectively measured occupational sitting and prolonged sitting bouts. Secondary outcomes reported in this study were occupational fatigue (Need for Recovery measure) and work engagement (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-9), which were collected via online surveys at baseline, 3- and 6-months. rANOVAs compared differences in outcomes from baseline to 6-months. ITT analyses are reported. Results/conclusions: No significant group X time interactions were observed for occupational fatigue (F(1.65,45)=.60, partial ?2=.01) or total work engagement (F(2,45)=.18, partial ?2=.004; p's>.05). There were also no group X time interactions in the work engagement subscales (vigour, dedication, absorption), or in the complete case analyses. Although reductions in sitting time were comparable to findings from studies using costlier alternatives, there were no changes in work-related measures of work engagement and occupational fatigue. These results are consistent with previous literature and suggest that reductions in daily workplace sitting are not associated with improvements in work-related outcomes. One interpretation is that reduced sitting does not increase fatigue or reduce engagement among employees. Therefore, standing desk converter interventions are potentially scalable without harming outcomes of particular relevance for employers or employees.Acknowledgments: We would like to acknowledge the support of the Canadian Institute for Health Research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport (SCAPPS refereed abstracts repository)Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207