Summary of findings 6.
Computer prompts + information compared to information alone for reducing sitting at work
| Computer prompts + information compared to information alone for reducing sitting at work | ||||||
| Patient or population: employees who sit at work Settings: workplace Intervention: computer prompt + information Comparison: information alone | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Information alone | Computer prompt + information | |||||
| Time spent sitting at work Accelerometer‐inclinometer Follow‐up: short term | The mean time spent sitting at work in the control group was 289 minutes/day4 | The mean time spent sitting at work in the intervention group was 17 minutes less (48 less to 14 more) | 59 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ low1,2 | ||
| Time spent sitting at work Self‐reported Follow‐up: median 13 weeks | The mean time spent sitting at work in the control group was 362 minutes/day4 | The mean time spent sitting at work in the intervention group was 55 minutes less (96 to 14 less) | 34 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low2,3 | ||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate | ||||||
1 Risk of bias high due to selective reporting and attrition bias, downgraded with one level 2 Small sample size, downgraded with one level 3 Risk of bias high due to unblinded outcome assessment, downgraded with one level
4 Sitting time in the control group