Reducing Sedentary Working in a University Setting: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of Three Workplace Feasibility Interventions

Background: Sedentary working is a major risk factor for chronic diseases. Workplace health and wellbeing-related interventions that focus on creating opportunities for physical movement may help mitigate prolonged sitting. The aim of this study was to evaluate three different interventions within a university setting. Methods: Three independent feasibility interventions focused on university employees were conducted. Intervention 1 assessed the deliberate use of office-based exercise equipment over 11 weeks (n = 57) alongside pre–post measures of health, quality of life and work limitations and free-text activity log comments. Intervention 2 involved a one-week baseline followed by 8 weeks of a sit–stand workstation intervention (n = 10), with participant-recorded sitting and standing and pre–post health and work-related outcomes. Intervention 3 used a within-participant repeated-measures design in which 61 employees completed seated, standing and walking meetings in a fixed sequence, with mood assessed immediately before and after each condition using the Brunel Mood Scale. Paired parametric or non-parametric analyses were used as appropriate, with repeated-measures comparisons for meeting formats and adjustment for multiple testing. Results: In Intervention 1, participants recorded a mean of ~56 min of exercise equipment use per week across the 11-week intervention. No statistically robust pre–post changes were identified in quality of life, health status, work limitations or estimated productivity loss after adjustment for multiple comparisons. Free-text comments indicated perceived benefits including enhanced energy, opportunities to disrupt screen-based work and increased focus, alongside practical barriers such as excessive office temperature. In Intervention 2, participant-recorded sitting decreased from 1973.6 (SD 265.6) to 821.3 (SD 361.1) minutes/week (p < 0.001; dz = −2.69), while standing increased from 438.5 (SD 286.0) to 923.1 (SD 439.6) minutes/week (p = 0.013; dz = 0.97). RAND-36 Physical Functioning and Energy/Fatigue also showed statistically significant pre–post differences after multiplicity adjustment, while other health, quality of life and work limitation outcomes did not. In Intervention 3, standing and walking meetings produced greater increases in Vigour compared to seated meetings. Vigour was the only BRUMS dimension for which the between-format difference remained statistically significant following correction for multiple comparisons. Conclusions: The three interventions demonstrate preliminary evidence that movement and postural alteration can be included in sedentary university working routines.