SynthesisJournal of occupational rehabilitation2023
A Systematic Review of Workplace Physical Activity Coaching.
Synthesis in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Workplace Coaching.F1000Research · 2025Pooled it
- Sustainable Workplaces and Employee Well-Being: A Systematic Review of ESG-Linked Physical Activity Programs.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Workplace-Based Education Interventions for Managing Metabolic Syndrome in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Realist Review.Public health challenges · 2024Review
- Evaluation of the "15 Minute Challenge": A Workplace Health and Wellbeing Program.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Supporting Sustainable Health Behavior Change: The Whole is Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim Studies show that about 60 min of moderate physical activity (PA) per day compensate for sitting all day at work. However, the workplace offers an ideal setting for health-promoting interventions such as PA coaching as a person-centered intervention aimed at achieving lasting health behavior changes. Given a good evidence base of health coaching studies in general, this systematic review aims to provide an overview of workplace PA coaching interventions. Methods This review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies published up to July 2021 were considered based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) longitudinal intervention studies, (2) analysis of PA at work, (3) sedentary employees, (4) PA coaching in the workplace as intervention, (5) increasing workplace PA. Results Of 4323 studies found, 14 studies with 17 interventions met inclusion criteria. All 17 interventions indicated an increase in at least one PA outcome. Twelve interventions indicated significant improvements in at least one workplace or total PA outcome. There is a high variation within the different coaching parameters, such as behavior change techniques and communication channels. The study quality showed a moderate to high risk of bias. Conclusions The majority of interventions provided evidence for the effectiveness of workplace PA coaching. Nevertheless, the results are inconclusive with regard to the variety of coaching parameters and thus no general statement can be made about the effectiveness of individual parameters. However, this variety of parameters also leads to a high degree of individualization of workplace PA coaching interventions to increase PA for different groups of employees and different types of workplaces.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.