4.1 Review

Workplace Physical Activity Interventions: A Systematic Review

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH PROMOTION
Volume 27, Issue 6, Pages E113-E123

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.4278/ajhp.120425-LIT-222

Keywords

Physical Activity; Review; Workplace; Worksite; Intervention; Exercise; Health Promotion; Effectiveness

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. To assess the effectiveness of workplace interventions in improving physical activity. Data Source. EBSCO research database (and all subdatabases). Study Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria. Articles were published from 2000 to 2010 in English, had appropriate designs, and measured employees' physical activity, energy consumption, and/or body mass index (BMI) as primary outcomes. Articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. Data Extraction. Data extracted included study design, study population, duration, intervention activities, outcomes, and results. Data Synthesis. Data were synthesized into one table. Results of each relevant outcome including p values were combined. Results. Twelve (60%) of 20 selected interventions reported an improvement in physical activity level, steps, or BMI, and there was one slowed step reduction in the intervention group. Among these, 10 were less than 6 months in duration; 9 used pedometers; 6 applied Internet-based approaches; and 5 included activities targeting social and environmental levels. Seven of 8 interventions with pre-posttest and quasi-experimental controlled design showed improvement on at least one outcome. However, 7 of 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) did not prove effective in any outcome. Conclusion. Interventions that had less rigorous research designs, used pedometers, applied Internet-based approaches, and included activities at social and environmental levels were more likely to report being effective than those without these characteristics.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available