The views of GPs about using sit–stand desks: an observational study
Background
Occupational sitting is associated with negative health outcomes. Sit–stand workstations have been shown to reduce sitting time in office workers, although there is no evidence on whether this change to practice would be acceptable to GPs.
Aim
To investigate GPs views about the use of sit–stand desks within general practice and the potential impact they may have on the nature and quality of consultations with adult patients.
Design & setting
Observational study involving GPs located across the UK.
Method
An online survey was emailed to members of the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) and shared on social media. Only GPs working in the UK were eligible. The survey included questions on socio-demographics, GPs views about the use of sit–stand desks within their work, their levels of physical activity, total time spent sitting at work each day, and time spent at work.
Results
14 142 surveys were sent by the RCGP to their members with 810 GPs responding, with a further 33 responding via social media. 60.6% of GPs would like a sit–stand desks in their consultation room, while 19.2% already had one. Most GPs thought sit–stand desks could be used for telephone consultations (91.9%) and administration tasks (92.3%). There was less agreement about whether they could be used during face-to-face consultations (35.0% agreed), with the potential impact on the doctor–patient relationship raised as the primary concern.
Conclusion
The implementation of sit–stand desks had support from GPs, but their possible impact on the doctor–patient relationship should be considered in future research.
Funding
National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Professorship award
NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre – Lifestyle theme
History
School
- Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences
Published in
BJGP OpenVolume
6Issue
3Publisher
Royal College of General PractitionersVersion
- VoR (Version of Record)
Rights holder
© The AuthorsPublisher statement
This article is Open Access and is published by the Royal College of General Practitioners. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Acceptance date
2022-02-22Publication date
2022-06-15Copyright date
2022eISSN
2398-3795Publisher version
Language
- en