Gordon 2013

Methods	Random allocation Unblinded Study duration: 10 weeks Dropout: 14% Location: USA Recruitment: strategically placed fliers posted around the Arizona State University Downtown Phoenix Campus, email advertisements delivered to employees through the Employee Wellness Committee, and word of mouth.
Participants	Population: currently employed adults with predominantly sedentary occupations working in the Greater Phoenix area in 2012‐2013 Intervention group: 12 participants Control group: 10 participants Demographics: Mean age: intervention 44.2 (SD 12.5), control 47.2 (SD 13.5) 50% females in both groups BMI: intervention 24.1 (SD 3) kg/m², control 30.6 (SD 5) kg/m² Intervention group composed of significantly more “official and managerial level” individuals.
Interventions	Duration of intervention: 10 weeks Intervention: one orientation to walking workstation, 5 bi‐weekly newsletters, specifically targeting workplace sitting behaviours, 5 bi‐weekly FAQ’s and access to study website for intervention content, latest sedentary behaviour research and links for tools for decreasing sitting time at work. Control: health education
Outcomes	Outcome name, measurement time/tool (units of measurement) Sitting time/workday (minutes/8‐hour workday) measured by accelerometer‐inclinometer. Participants were also asked to complete a daily log to determine work schedule and verify obtained inclinometer and accelerometer data
Notes	Thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Group allocation was decided by tossing a coin.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	One participant from both groups withdrew, due to busy schedule; 1 participant from both groups was excluded due to device malfunction; and 1 participant from the control group was excluded due to refusal to wear accelerometer. Intention‐to‐treat analysis was followed for data analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes mentioned in the method section were reported. Study protocol was not available.
Baseline comparability/ imbalance	High risk	Intervention group composed of significantly more “official and managerial level” individuals. Age of participants in the control group was 47.2 (SD 13.5) and in the intervention group was 44.2 (SD 12.5). There were 50% females in both groups. There was significant difference in BMI of participants between intervention and control groups.
Validity of outcome measure	Low risk	The accelerometer is a valid instrument for the measurement of sitting time.