A scoping review of workplace wellness audit tools assessing physical activity and sedentary behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regular physical inactivity and excessive sedentary behaviour are public and population health concerns. The workplace is an ideal health promotion intervention setting to support employees, particularly office workers. Workplace assessments are a critical component of workplace health promotion programming. The aim of this project was to conduct a scoping review to systematically identify and describe workplace audit tools that assess physical activity and sedentary behaviour influences, as two independent behaviours, through a social ecological lens. METHODS: Fourteen electronic databases were searched for academic literature and 69 web-based resources were searched for grey literature in May 2017. English language workplace audit tools with items on physical activity or sedentary behaviour established in western countries were included. Key characteristics (ie, aim, type, health behaviour, validity, reliability and theory/model/framework) of the audit tools, checklists or questionnaires for office-based workplaces were identified, described and summarised. RESULTS: The scoping review identified 21 relevant tools. Most tools focused on physical activity alone and did not address sedentary behaviour as a distinct behaviour. Few tools included items assessing physical activity and sedentary behaviour influences across multiple levels of the social ecological model. The most common social ecological focuses in the tools were policy and environmental influences. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous workplace physical activity and/or sedentary behaviour audit tools were available. However, a gap was identified as tools and resources that assess and support organisational changes to influence physical activity and sedentary behaviour as two independent health behaviours across multiple social ecological levels within the workplace had not been developed.
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 | 0.031 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".