Chau 2014

Methods	Random allocation with cross‐over and wait‐list control Participants were allocated randomly by drawing from the ballot four at a time. The first four were allocated to intervention group and next four to control group for four weeks. The remaining participants were assigned to the wait‐list control condition and were placed on the waiting list in seven groups (four to five people per group). After the initial four weeks, the previous control group received the intervention with the next group from the ballot draw serving as their controls. This was repeated until all nine groups had received the intervention. Unblinded Study duration: 9 weeks Drop out: 7% Location: Australia Recruitment: project was advertised to staff as part of their workplace wellness program via internal mail, staff meetings and information fliers in the office. Staff members who were interested in participating contacted the research team and received additional project information and an expression of interest form. They could then join the study ballot by returning the expression of interest form.
Participants	Population: staff from a non‐government health agency in New South Wales, Australia Demographics: Body mass index (kg/m²) : Underweight (<18.5): 13%, Normal range (18.5 – 24.9): 50%, Overweight (25 – 29.9): 25%, Obese (≥30): 13%
Interventions	Duration of intervention: 9 weeks Intervention: sit‐stand workstation Control: no sit‐stand workstation
Outcomes	Outcome name, measurement time/tool (units of measurement) Changes in self‐reported and objectively assessed time spent sitting, standing and walking/stepping (minutes/day) before and after the use of a sit‐stand workstation measured by ActivPALs and self‐report questionnaires. Domain specific sitting (minutes/day) over the whole day, assessed by self‐report.
Notes	This research was supported by funding from Heart Foundation New South Wales, and Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Program Grant (#569940).
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomly drawn from a ballot by a researcher in the presence of potential participants and other researchers. Participants were allocated to the intervention group, control group and wait‐list control condition.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Allocation concealment was not possible due to the open plan nature of the study office environment.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Research staff, participants, and assessors were not blinded to group allocation.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	As outcomes were measured with accelerometer‐inclinometers and self‐administered questionnaires, it is unlikely that results were influenced by the lack of blinding.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Three participants who were missing age or BMI values were not included in the analyses. Imputing values for these missing covariate values did not influence the effect of the intervention on the adjusted estimates for the outcomes, nor did it change the effects age or BMI had on the outcome.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes mentioned in the methods section were reported. The study protocol was not available.
Baseline comparability/ imbalance	Low risk	Since the trial used a cross‐over design, all the participants would receive the interventions at some point.
Validity of outcome measure	Low risk	The accelerometer is a valid instrument for the measurement of sitting time.