Office and call center workers ’ steps/day were among the lowest , while those of postal delivery workers were highest .
Office workers had the greatest ST and the lowest time in LPA both at work and during wakeful time .
Laborers had the lowest ST and spent a significantly greater proportion of their work time in LPA and MVPA .
Healthcare and protective services workers had higher levels of LPA at work compared to other occupations .
Workers in driving-based occupations tended to have a higher body mass index and blood pressure .
Conclusion This review identifies that occupational and wakeful time PA and ST differed between occupations .
Background With approximately 8 hours of one ’s waking day spent at work , occupational tasks and environments are important influencers on an individual ’s physical activity ( PA ) and sedentary behaviours .
Little research has compared device-measured physical activity , sedentary behaviour and cardiometabolic outcomes between occupational groups .
Objective To compare device-measured movement ( sedentary time [ ST ] , light intensity  physical activity [ LPA ] , moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity [ MVPA ] , and steps ) across occupations .
The secondary objective was to examine whether cardiometabolic and fitness outcomes differed by occupation .
Long-term effects of sit-stand workstations on workplace sitting: A natural experiment.
OBJECTIVE Sit-st and workstations may result in significant reductions in workplace sitting . However , few studies have examined long-term maintenance under real-world conditions . The purpose of this study was to evaluate workplace sitting time , cardio-metabolic biomarkers , and work productivity during a workplace re- design which included the installation of sit-st and workstations . DESIGN Natural experiment with appropriately matched comparison . METHODS Office workers from distinct worksites in the same unit were recruited ( Intervention , n=24 ; Comparison , n=12 ) . Intervention arm participants received a sit-st and workstation and 4 months of sitting-specific motivational support . The comparison arm received 4 months of ergonomic focused motivational support .  Time spent in sitting , st and ing , and other physical activity were measured by activPAL3c for a week . Cardio-metabolic biomarkers and work productivity were also measured . Assessment s occurred at baseline , 4 months , and 18 months . RESULTS At 4 months , work sitting time was reduced by 56.7±89.1min/8h workday ( d=-0.64 ) , relative to comparison . St and ing time ( 37.4±69.2min/8h workday ; d=0.54 ) and sit-to-st and transitions ( 3.3±0.4min/8h workday , d=0.44 ) were also improved relative to comparison . At 18 months , work sitting time reductions ( 52.6±68.3min/8h workday ; d=-0.77 ) and st and ing time improvements ( 17.7±54.8min/8h workday , d=0.32 ) were maintained in the intervention group relative to comparison . Cardio-metabolic and work productivity changes were mixed ; however , strongest effects favoring the intervention group were observed at 18 months . CONCLUSIONS Sit-st and workstations , accompanied with behavioral support , were effective in reducing workplace and overall daily sitting and increasing st and ing time in a real-world setting . The effect appears to have been sustained for 18 months , with mixed results in cardio-metabolic and productivity outcomes
Office and call center workers ’ steps/day were among the lowest , while those of postal delivery workers were highest .
Office workers had the greatest ST and the lowest time in LPA both at work and during wakeful time .
Laborers had the lowest ST and spent a significantly greater proportion of their work time in LPA and MVPA .
Healthcare and protective services workers had higher levels of LPA at work compared to other occupations .
Workers in driving-based occupations tended to have a higher body mass index and blood pressure .
Conclusion This review identifies that occupational and wakeful time PA and ST differed between occupations .
Background With approximately 8 hours of one ’s waking day spent at work , occupational tasks and environments are important influencers on an individual ’s physical activity ( PA ) and sedentary behaviours .
Little research has compared device-measured physical activity , sedentary behaviour and cardiometabolic outcomes between occupational groups .
Objective To compare device-measured movement ( sedentary time [ ST ] , light intensity  physical activity [ LPA ] , moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity [ MVPA ] , and steps ) across occupations .
The secondary objective was to examine whether cardiometabolic and fitness outcomes differed by occupation .