SynthesisJournal of occupational health2025
Effectiveness of work ability interventions on productivity: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of occupational health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of work ability interventions on productivity: a systematic review.Journal of occupational health · 2025Pooled it
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
Abstract
objectivesThis systematic review aimed to synthesize the effectiveness of work ability interventions on productivity outcomes.
methodsThis systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024541404) and conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. In December 2024, a systematic search from 2000 onward was conducted using databases including EBSCO, ProQuest, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed. Two reviewers independently screened articles, assessed quality using risk-of-bias tools, and extracted data, with a third reviewer resolving any disagreements. The eligibility criteria were defined using population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) elements.
resultsOf the 55 articles that underwent quality assessment, 26 were excluded due to high risk of bias. Among the remaining 29 articles, 24 were randomized controlled trials, of which 5 conducted economic evaluation, and 5 were nonrandomized controlled trials, collectively conducting 33 interventions. The results of the original studies showed that 5 work ability interventions had a statistically significant effect on productivity. Four interventions effectively reduced absenteeism, and 1 intervention increased the risk of absenteeism. One intervention indicated that the cost of absenteeism was reduced, and another showed that the intervention was more effective and less costly than usual occupational care.
conclusionsOur analysis of work ability interventions showed that 28 interventions did not have an effect on productivity and only 5 interventions affected productivity. This systematic review highlights the limited evidence regarding evidence-based work ability interventions that affect productivity. Despite the importance of the topic, it remains understudied, and there is insufficient evidence to support decision-makers aiming to enhance productivity.
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.