Brakenridge 2016.

Methods	Study design: cluster‐randomised controlled trial Study duration: 12 months Dropout: 55% (baseline pain participants) Location: Australia Recruitment: 1 large Australian organisation with offices around the country. Participants attended an information session and were invited to participate in the study
Participants	Population: office workers from a private organisation with mean age of 23 to 58 years Intervention group: 66 participants (total) with 2 to 22 participants with baseline pain Control group: 87 participants (total) with 5 to 32 participants with baseline pain Included criteria: working at study locations or working nearby or visiting a location regularly; working 50% or more than full‐time equivalent, able to walk 10 m Excluded criteria: pregnant at baseline, allergies to adhesive tape, planned absence from work for longer than 2 weeks during the first 3‐month study period, having an activity permissive workstation at baseline assessment Baseline characteristics: at baseline, the control group had a higher proportion of males, senior leaders, and overweight participants. This group also had fewer managers and reported more lower extremity musculoskeletal problems when compared to the intervention group. Baseline activity levels between groups were comparable
Interventions	Intervention Description of intervention: organisation level strategy with activity tracker. Strategy consists of workplace champion delivering organisation level intervention strategies (e.g. a booklet with information on sitting and health implications, weekly emails, workplace presentations). The activity tracker 'LUMOback' provided feedback on sitting, standing, stepping, sitting breaks, posture, and sleep Duration of intervention: 12 months Intensity of intervention: booklet and 1 email every 2 weeks; LUMOback self‐directed. Encouraged to use LUMOback for first 3 months Control Description of intervention: organisational support ‐ informational booklet and emails Duration of intervention: 12 months Intensity of intervention: booklet and 1 email every 2 weeks
Outcomes	Outcome name, measurement tool, body region Musculoskeletal pain Nordic Musculoskeletal Survey ‐ presence by region and intensity of pain in each region (neck, shoulder, upper back, lower back, elbow, hand, hip/thigh, knee, ankle/foot) Changes in sitting/standing/stepping during work hours measured with activPAL accelerometer/inclinometer device Self‐reported health and work‐related outcomes
Identification
Notes	Sponsorship source: the National Heart Foundation of Australia; the Office Ergonomics Research Committee (OERC); the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia; Australian Postgraduate Award; the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program; Lendlease
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation	Unclear risk	Quote: "randomisation occurred after the final list of team managers for each location had been obtained and prior to the staff information session and baseline assessment. A university staff member not involved in the study randomised teams by strata (location B/small location A teams/large location A teams) to either Group ORG or Group ORG + Tracker, using a randomisation website" Judgement comment: randomisation (at cluster level) was performed by a researcher not involved in the study using a randomisation website. Although the overall randomisation procedure was low risk, as only a select group of participants with baseline pain were included in the review, the randomisation was compromised
Allocation concealment	Low risk	Judgement comment: randomisation occurred after the final list of team managers for each location had been obtained and before the staff information session and baseline assessment. A research team member informed the champion of the allocation. Randomisation was conducted by a staff member not involved in the study using a randomisation website (third party) to conceal allocation; then a research team member applied the randomisation schedule to the list of teams
Blinding of participants and personnel	High risk	Judgement comment: due to the nature of the intervention of workplace support with and without an activity tracker, it would not have been possible to blind researchers or participants from the intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: in this study, musculoskeletal outcomes were a secondary outcome, so it is unclear whether the fact that participants were not blinded to the intervention would contribute to bias in self‐reporting of musculoskeletal outcomes
Incomplete outcome data	High risk	Judgement comment: loss to follow‐up was substantial (e.g. 13/30 in the control group and 18/26 in the intervention group for the neck pain outcome measure). Although missing data were imputed by chained equations, it is unclear whether musculoskeletal data were imputed, as the primary outcome in this review was only a secondary outcome in the study; it appears that no further analyses were conducted
Selective reporting	Low risk	Judgement comment: outcomes reported are consistent with the published protocol; (upon request) study authors provided results of all musculoskeletal outcomes measured
Baseline imbalance	Low risk	Judgement comment: although some baseline imbalances were reported, analyses were adjusted for potential confounders