Lifestyle health promotion interventions for the nursing workforce: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Study aims were to identify the efficacy of lifestyle health promotion interventions intended to improve behavioural health risk factors and/or behavioural or clinical outcomes of working-age nurses. BACKGROUND: Nurses constitute around half the health workforce but global shortages and an ageing profile challenge future supply. The occupational hazards and stresses of nursing are well known. Health promotion, possibly workplace-based, presents opportunities to safeguard the health of nurses. DESIGN: This was a systematic review undertaken in line with guidance for reviews in health care. METHODS: Seven electronic databases were searched from 2000-2011 and references of relevant papers. Two reviewers independently reviewed and critiqued retrieved papers and extracted data. Methodological features were described using the CONSORT checklists; risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook classification. RESULTS: With design inclusion criteria relaxed to include an uncontrolled trial, only three intervention studies were retrieved, from the United States, Canada and Taiwan. All had limitations and high risk of bias, but benefits were reported. Outcomes included fewer cigarettes smoked during the intervention period, down from mean (SD) 20 (8)-12 (9) per day (p < 0·001); significantly reduced fat mass (0·68 vs. 0·07 kg; p = 0·028); and significant gains across a battery of fitness assessments. The paucity of work focused on nurses' health behaviours was the important finding. CONCLUSION: The workplace is a potentially fruitful location for health promotion intervention but nurses have seldom been recognised as a target participant group. Given the international priority ascribed to nursing workforce retention, this is a missed opportunity for occupational health planning. Potential benefits to nurses' welfare and well-being may accrue from well-designed intervention studies. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurse leaders have a key role in driving recognition, spearheading commitment and development of targeted, whole-organisation programmes to promote health profile improvement for the nursing workforce.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".