Digital Wellness Programs in the Workplace: Meta-Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Corporate wellness programs are increasingly using digital technologies to promote employee health. Digital wellness programs (DWPs) refer to initiatives that deliver health interventions through digital tools. Despite a growing body of evidence on DWPs, the literature remains fragmented across multiple health domains. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to provide a comprehensive synthesis of existing research on the efficacy (eg, impact on employee's physical health, mental well-being, behavioral changes, and absenteeism) and acceptability (eg, engagement, perceived usefulness, and adoption) of employer-provided DWPs. Specifically, we aim to map the extent, range, and nature of research on this topic; summarize key findings; identify gaps; and facilitate knowledge dissemination. METHODS: We conducted a meta-review of studies published between 2000 and 2023. We adopted a database-driven search approach, including the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ProQuest Central, and Web of Science Core Collection databases. The inclusion criteria consisted of (1) review articles; (2) publications in English, French, or German; (3) studies reporting on digital health interventions implemented in organizations; (4) studies reporting on nonclinical or preclinical employee populations; and (5) studies assessing the efficacy and acceptability of employer-provided DWPs. We performed a descriptive numerical summary and thematic analysis of the included studies. RESULTS: Out of 593 nonduplicate studies screened, 29 met the inclusion criteria. The most investigated health domains included mental health (n=19), physical activity (n=8), weight management (n=6), unhealthy behavior change (n=4), and sleep management (n=2). In total, 24 reviews focused on the efficacy of DWPs, primarily in relation to health-related outcomes (eg, stress and weight), while fewer reviews addressed organization-related outcomes (eg, burnout and absenteeism). Four reviews explored the mechanisms of action, and 3 assessed the acceptability of DWPs using various measures. Overall, the findings support the efficacy and acceptability of DWPs, although significant gaps persist, particularly regarding the durability of outcomes, the role of technology, and the causal mechanisms underlying behavioral change. CONCLUSIONS: While DWPs show promise across a variety of health domains, several aspects of their effectiveness remain underexplored. Practitioners should capitalize on existing evidence of successful DWPs while acknowledging the limitations in the literature.
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 | 0.012 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".