Workplace physical activity interventions: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to report a synopsis of a recent systematic review of the literature regarding the effectiveness of workplace physical activity interventions, commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Design/methodology/approach A search for English‐language papers published between 1996 and 2007 was conducted using 12 relevant databases and associated grey literature. Search protocols and analysis regarding study quality as recommended by NICE were utilised. Key inclusion criteria were, workplace intervention aiming to increase physical activity, intervention aimed at working adults, intervention initiated/endorsed by the employer, physical activity outcome. Thirty‐three studies (38 papers) met the inclusion criteria and were independently reviewed (checked by two reviewers) with a narrative synthesis of findings. Findings Fourteen studies were graded as high quality or good quality. Evidence from previous systematic reviews was inconclusive. Data regarding the effectiveness of stair walking interventions was limited and intervention effects were short‐lived. Three public sector studies provided evidence that workplace walking interventions using pedometers can increase daily step counts. One good quality study reported a positive intervention effect on walking to work behaviour (active travel) in economically advantaged female employees. There was strong evidence that workplace counselling influenced physical activity behaviour. There is a dearth of evidence for small and medium enterprises. Research limitations/implications Due to the necessary UK focus and time constraints, only studies from Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were included. Originality/value The paper shows that there is a growing evidence base that workplace physical activity interventions can positively influence physical activity behaviour.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".