Danquah 2017.

Methods	Study design: cluster‐randomised controlled trial Study duration: 3 months Dropout: 11% of all participants, but no specific information provided about participants with baseline musculoskeletal symptoms Location: Denmark Recruitment: recruited through a press release and an open invitation in an electronic newsletter aimed at practitioners and health workers in municipalities and private workplaces all over Denmark
Participants	Population: practitioners and health workers in municipalities and private workplaces all over Denmark Intervention group: 173 (total) with 50 to 76 participants with baseline pain recruited from 10 offices Control group: 144 (total) with 50 to 64 participants with baseline pain from 9 offices Included criteria: office‐based workplaces with employees who were sitting for most of the day. Each workplace was required to have at least 4 offices, divided by walls, floors, or locations (minimise contamination between groups) to act as clusters. To be included, workers from each workplace could not take part in collaborative activities. Management needed to agree to participate in the activities and to provide necessary resources for the study such as sit‐stand desks. Individuals who agreed to participate needed to be over 18 years of age, to understand Danish, and to work more than 4 days per week (> 30 hours) Excluded criteria: sickness or disability that prevented standing or walking, pregnancy Baseline characteristics: no major differences in participant characteristics or in sitting at baseline were reported between groups
Interventions	Intervention Description of intervention: multi‐component tailored to local environment and needs. Used intervention mapping, social cognitive theory, diffusion of intervention theory, and goal‐setting theory. Final 5 intervention components: appointment of ambassadors; environmental changes (high meeting tables and walking meeting routes); lecture (knowledge of sedentary behaviour and health); workshop (discussion of intervention strategies ‐ sit‐stand desk, breaking up prolonged sitting, standing and walking meetings, common goal‐setting); email or text messages (reinforcement strategies) Duration of intervention: 3 months, with preparation before commencement Intensity of intervention: ambassadors following up every week/second week Control Description of intervention: continued with usual work but already were provided with and were accustomed to using a sit‐stand desk Duration of intervention: 3 months Intensity of intervention: not stated
Outcomes	Outcome name, measurement tool, body region Musculoskeletal pain Web‐based questionnaire ‐ measured by 3 items on pain in neck/shoulders, back, and extremities reported as how bothered (very bothered, little bothered, not bothered) regarding pain within the past 14 days Changes in sitting, standing, prolonged sitting bouts, sit‐stand transitions at work, leisure sitting time, MVPA Measured by activPAL3 accelerometer/inclinometer device and self‐report questionnaire Weight (kg), waist circumference (cm), fat‐free mass (kg), fat mass (kg), body fat percentage at 3 months
Identification
Notes	Sponsorship source: supported by Tryg Fonden, Denmark. Sponsors had no role in study design, data collection or analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation	Unclear risk	Quote: "a senior researcher carried out the randomization blinded, using random number sequence in Stata (13.1)" Judgement comment: randomisation at each workplace was carried out by a senior researcher using a random sequence generator. Although the overall randomisation procedure was low risk, as only a select group of participants with baseline pain were included in the review, randomisation was compromised
Allocation concealment	Low risk	Judgement comment: randomisation took place before baseline measurements by a blinded researcher. Allocation was not disclosed to participants, researchers, or data collectors until after baseline measurements were complete
Blinding of participants and personnel	High risk	Judgement comment: participants and/or researchers were not blinded. Although attempts were made to physically separate clusters within the workplace, it is unlikely that participants would not be aware of their allocation. It would not be possible to blind research personnel due to the nature of the intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: a blinded version of the data was used for data management and analysis. However, 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	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: at first follow‐up, 16/123 in the control group were lost to follow‐up and 14/156 in the intervention group. Attrition was balanced between groups, but it is unclear whether other factors may have contributed to attrition. Although missing data were imputed by multiple imputations using chained equations, it is unclear whether musculoskeletal data were imputed and to what extent
Selective reporting	Low risk	Judgement comment: all outcomes reported were reported at trial registration, and no outcomes in the trial registration were omitted
Baseline imbalance	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: details from full group baseline factors, not only pain; no baseline sitting behaviour reported