Lifestyle Interventions for the Treatment of Obesity in Workers: An Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Obesity is a multifactorial disease with significant physical, psychological, and economic impacts on individuals and society. Workers are particularly vulnerable, as obesity is associated with reduced productivity, absenteeism, and premature mortality. Lifestyle interventions combining dietary, physical activity, and behavioural strategies have been investigated as therapeutic approaches in this population. Objective: We aimed to conduct an integrative review assessing the effectiveness of workplace-based obesity treatment models involving dietary interventions, physical activity, and behavioural change. Methods: A search was conducted in PubMed for studies published between 2006 and 2024, with no language restrictions. Eligible studies included experimental or quasi-experimental longitudinal designs involving adult workers. After screening 95 articles, 18 were evaluated in full, and 8 met all inclusion criteria. Data extraction covered study design, intervention type, comparators, outcomes, and methodological quality, assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: Half of the included studies reported no significant reduction in body mass index after 6 or 12 months, while the others showed only modest decreases. Nevertheless, all interventions demonstrated improvements in dietary habits (reduced sugar-sweetened beverage intake, increased fruit, vegetable, and fibre consumption), physical activity (increased walking, reduced sedentary behaviour), and behavioural domains (adherence to healthy routines, self-monitoring, and family or employer support). Conclusions: Lifestyle-based workplace interventions for obesity show limited long-term effectiveness in weight reduction but promote healthier lifestyle habits, cardiometabolic health, and more supportive work environments. Future research should include diverse socioeconomic settings, particularly in developing countries, and apply robust designs, longer follow-ups, and innovative strategies to enhance adherence and outcomes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".