Evidence mapPaperPMID 40441817Full record

ReviewThe Lancet. Public health2025

Effectiveness of workplace interventions for health promotion.

Marianna Virtanen, Tea Lallukka, Marko Elovainio, Andrew Steptoe, Mika Kivimäki

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Lancet. Public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Benefits of an Innovative 90-Day Longevity Workplace Program on Health in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Marianna VirtanenSchool of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland; Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: marianna.virtanen@uef.fi.
Tea LallukkaDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Marko ElovainioDepartment of Psychology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.
Andrew SteptoeDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Mika KivimäkiDepartment of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK; Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland.

Funding

NIA NIH HHS R01 AG056477
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Workplaces are an important setting for health promotion, offering established infrastructure, daily access to large populations, and opportunities to engage groups that are often under-represented in such initiatives. Although the effectiveness of workplace health promotion has been evaluated in reviews focusing on specific interventions, a comprehensive overview is needed. To address this gap, we present a quality-informed horizontal analysis encompassing 88 reviews and 339 meta-analysed effect estimates published between 2011 and 2024, covering a broad range of workplace health interventions. Mental health and stress reduction were the most frequently studied targets (36%), followed by weight management and cardiometabolic health (25%), health-related behaviours (22%), and musculoskeletal disorders and pain (17%). According to the GRADE assessment, 71 (21%) of the 339 meta-analysed effect estimates provided evidence of moderate quality, and the remainder were categorised as low or very low quality, with none classified as high quality. Mindfulness showed effectiveness across multiple stress and mental health outcomes, and cognitive behavioural techniques, stress management, physically oriented methods, and e-health interventions also showed some effectiveness. Multicomponent interventions had small but measurable effects on weight loss, glucose levels, fruit intake, and seasonal influenza vaccination uptake. A variety of behavioural, physical activity, environmental, multicomponent, and e-health interventions influenced physical activity and sedentary time at work. Consistent with findings found in non-occupational settings, effects at the individual level were generally modest but could be meaningful at both the workplace and population levels. In this Review we also discuss the broader public health implications of workplace health promotion, and highlight the strengths and limitations of the existing evidence and propose directions for future research.

Indexed as

Health PromotionOccupational HealthWorkplaceHumans

Identifiers

PMID40441817
PMCPMC12176053

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.