The effects of standing desks within the school classroom: A systematic review

摘要

Background The school classroom environment often dictates that pupils sit for prolonged periods which may be detrimental for children's health. Replacing traditional school desks with standing desks may reduce sitting time and provide other benefits. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the impact of standing desks within the school classroom. Method Studies published in English up to and including June 2015 were located from online databases and manual searches. Studies implementing standing desks within the school classroom, including children and/or adolescents (aged 5–18 years) which assessed the impact of the intervention using a comparison group or pre–post design were included. Results Eleven studies were eligible for inclusion; all were set in primary/elementary schools, and most were conducted in the USA (n = 6). Most were non-randomised controlled trials (n = 7), with durations ranging from a single time point to five months. Energy expenditure (measured over 2 h during school day mornings) was the only outcome that consistently demonstrated positive results (three out of three studies). Evidence for the impact of standing desks on sitting, standing, and step counts was mixed. Evidence suggested that implementing standing desks in the classroom environment appears to be feasible, and not detrimental to learning. Conclusions Interventions utilising standing desks in classrooms demonstrate positive effects in some key outcomes but the evidence lacks sufficient quality and depth to make strong conclusions. Future studies using randomised control trial designs with larger samples, longer durations, with sitting, standing time and academic achievement as primary outcomes, are warranted. Highlights ? We assessed the impact of classroom standing desks in 11 studies. ? Diverse implementation strategies and outcome measures were used across studies. ? Mixed results were found for most outcome measures including sitting and standing. ? Most studies were low quality which limited the ability to draw strong conclusions. ? More studies of longer duration that assess sitting and standing time are needed.