Workplace Health Interventions Targeting Cardiovascular Diseases and Diabetes Mellitus for Blue-Collar Workers: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiometabolic diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and diabetes mellitus (DM), represent a global health issue, causing significant premature mortality and disability. Blue-collar workers, who often face a higher exposure to risk factors (eg, smoking, poor diet, and lack of physical activity), are particularly vulnerable to these diseases. Workplace health promotion plays a crucial role in mitigating this risk, yet the scope and the characteristics of interventions targeting this specific workforce remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review will be to assess the extent and characteristics of workplace health promotion interventions aimed at preventing cardiometabolic diseases and their risk factors in blue-collar workers. METHODS: The review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. A search of MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Database as well as grey literature will be conducted. The search strategy is designed to capture relevant studies published since 2014 in English, Spanish, Italian, and Polish. Eligible study designs include experimental design (eg, randomized controlled trials), observational studies (eg, longitudinal studies), qualitative research, and mixed-method approaches as well as other formats present in grey literature (eg, reports). This review will include studies focusing on health promotion interventions involving adult blue-collar workers (aged ≥18 years) currently employed, with at least 60% of participants being blue-collar employees. The interventions of interest are workplace health promotion strategies targeting CVD, DM, or their risk factors, such as hypertension, obesity, and smoking. Each paper retrieved will be screened for inclusion by at least 2 reviewers. Disagreements between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion with the other reviewers. Studies focusing on noninterventional contexts, mental health, or ergonomic safety will be excluded. Data will be extracted and analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods, with a focus on intervention types, participant characteristics, and outcomes. RESULTS: The study began in March 2024 and the full scoping review report is expected to be ready in September 2025. CONCLUSIONS: The scoping review presented in this protocol can contribute to filling the knowledge gap by mapping the current state of workplace health promotion interventions aimed at preventing CVD and DM and modifying relevant risk factors in the blue-collar workers' group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework hdrq4; https://osf.io/hdrq4. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/74248.
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 | 0.064 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.086 | 0.014 |
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".