4.7 Review

Dietary Interventions to Promote Healthy Eating among Office Workers: A Literature Review

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 12, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu12123754

Keywords

dietary intervention; office workers; healthy diet; dietary behavior

Funding

  1. Ekhaga Foundation [2018-30]
  2. Knowledge Foundation [2020/0244]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Our aim is to review published studies on dietary interventions to promote healthy eating habits among office workers. The databases PubMed, EBSCO (MEDLINE, Academic Search Elite, CINAHL Plus, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO), Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar were searched between February and April 2019. Initially, 6647 articles were identified, and the final number of articles that met the inclusion criteria was 25. We identified four different types of interventions that included educational and/or environmental components, where environmental components provided healthy food in a work-related context. The interventions at the offices included web-based material, availability of food, provision of information in various ways, and a combination of environmental, educational and theory-based psychological approaches (i.e., multicomponent). The most commonly used designs were web-based and information interventions, respectively, which are the least expensive ways to intervene. The interventions assessed a range of outcomes, but this literature review focused on three, i.e., dietary intake, dietary behavior and health-related outcomes. Although the studies were heterogenous in terms of outcomes, design, number of participants, gender distribution and duration, all studies reported at least one positive effect. Thus, workplace dietary interventions are an unutilized area to positively influence dietary intake and health outcomes among office workers. However, the intervention needs to be tailored to the workplace.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available