Characterising workplace dietary interventions reporting organisational-related outcomes: A systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The workplace is considered an important setting for public health dietary interventions (1) . For employers, workplace wellbeing provision has the potential for cost-savings related to outcomes such as employee absenteeism, productivity, retention, and company reputation. Yet the evidence to support workplace dietary interventions against these outcomes is limited (2) . The aim of this study was to characterise workplace dietary intervention studies that have evaluated organisational-related outcomes. A systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42023454673) was conducted. Six databases, (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, APA PsycINFO, Business Source Complete) were searched for articles from 1990 to September 2023. Studies were screened in duplicate and included if they were a randomised controlled trial (RCT) or quasi-experimental design, conducted in a workplace setting in a high-income country, the intervention included a dietary component, and they reported organisational-related outcomes. A narrative synthesis was conducted to characterise study components (population, study design, study duration, intervention characteristics) and outcome measures (outcome measurement tools, unit of measure). From the 29,418 articles retrieved, 168 met the inclusion criteria. Most articles reported using a quasi-experimental (68.4%) design. Provision of educational materials (62.5%) and group nutritional education (56.0%) were the most frequently reported intervention components and, 82% were combined with a physical activity component. Of the included studies 20.2% were short-term interventions (≤ 3 months) and 42.3% studies were long-term (>12 months). Most studies (26.8%) did not report the personnel delivering the intervention, 25.6% of studies reported a dietitian or nutritionist were involved in delivering the intervention. Most interventions (63.7%) had at least one element of the intervention delivered face to face. Most studies (76.2%) were conducted in the USA or Canada, with 3.6% conducted in UK workplaces. The five main occupational settings reported were health and social care (19.8%), education (14%), manufacturing (12.2%), finance and insurance (11.0%) and public administration (8.1%). The three most frequently reported organisational-related outcomes were absenteeism (45.2%), healthcare costs (35.7%), and program return on investment (ROI) or cost benefit analysis (20.8%). Varied approaches were used to measure organisational-related outcomes, e.g., absenteeism was measured using self-reported WHO-Health and Work Performance questionnaire (3) , the Productivity and Disease questionnaire (4) , or objective methods such as human resource records. Economic outcomes e.g., healthcare costs and ROI were measured using insurance claims data and/or cost modelling. The results indicate a substantial volume of studies published evaluating dietary workplace interventions against organisational outcomes, although there is variation in how individual outcomes are measured. The review has found an over representation of studies conducted in North American organisations and limited studies conducted in the UK. The next stage of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and quality of the evidence for dietary interventions to impact the organisational outcomes identified.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».