Evidence mapPaperPMID 41288917Full record

Trial reportGeroScience2026

Workplace health promotion for healthy aging: a randomized controlled trial within the Semmelweis-EUniWell Workplace Health Promotion Model Program comparing email-based and face-to-face motivational interviewing to increase step count.

Wei Yi Hung, Dorottya Árva, Noémi Mózes, David Major, Kata Pártos, András Terebessy, Ferenc Horváth, Ágnes Fehér, Mónika Fekete, Norbert Dósa and 18 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in GeroScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

28 authors.

Wei Yi Hung *Institute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary.
Dorottya Árva *Institute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary.
Noémi MózesInstitute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary.
David MajorInstitute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary.
Kata PártosInstitute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary.
András TerebessyInstitute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary.
Ferenc HorváthInstitute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary.
Ágnes FehérInstitute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary.
Mónika FeketeInstitute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary.
Norbert DósaInstitute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary.
Péter VargaInstitute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary.
Andrea LehoczkiInstitute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary.
Anna AlliquanderInstitute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary.
Boglárka CsíkInstitute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary.
Anna PéterfiInstitute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary.
Eszter SuskóInstitute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary.
Júlia TóthDoctoral College - Health Sciences Division, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Tamás CsípőInstitute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary.
Ágnes LipéczInstitute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary.
Mariann MoizsInstitute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary.
György PureblInstitute of Behavioral Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Zoltán VokóCenter for Health Technology Assessment, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Dávid NagyCenter for Health Technology Assessment, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Béla MerkelyHeart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Róza ÁdányInstitute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary.
Ádám G TabákInstitute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary.
Vince Fazekas-PongorInstitute of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Üllői Út 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary. pongor.vince@semmelweis.hu.ORCID 0000-0002-6405-4003
Zoltan UngvariHealthy Aging Section, European Public Health Association, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

Eötvös Loránd Research Network TKCS-2021/32Innovációs és Technológiai Minisztérium RRF-2.3.1-21-2022-00003Innovációs és Technológiai Minisztérium RRF-2.3.1-21-2022-00015Innovációs és Technológiai Minisztérium TKP2021-NKTA-47National Research, Development and Innovation Office 101004093/ EUniWell/EAC-A02-2019 / EAC-A02-2019-1National Research, Development and Innovation Office EKÖP-2024-9
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the aging population in Europe, particularly Hungary, unhealthy aging is emerging as a growing public health challenge. Physical inactivity is a modifiable risk factor for age-related diseases and remains highly prevalent. Increasing daily physical activity is a key strategy for extending health span. Step-count-based interventions, including motivational interviewing and email-based feedback, have been shown to promote physical activity, but direct comparisons of these approaches in workplace settings are limited. Conducted within the framework of the Semmelweis-EUniWell Workplace Health Promotion Model Program, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of two scalable workplace interventions compared with a control group on increasing daily step count and total weekly physical activity, and to examine the sustainability of intervention effects over six months. In this three-armed randomized controlled trial, Semmelweis university employees were assigned to one of three groups: combined program of face-to-face motivational interviewing and email-based motivation, email-based motivation program alone or a control group with no intervention. Daily step counts were self-reported using participants' personal smart devices and recorded at baseline, every two weeks during an eight-week intervention, and at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-up. Total weekly physical activity was assessed using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Changes were modeled and compared with mixed model regression. A total of 155 employees participated (49 in the face-to-face motivational interviewing group, 53 in the email-based motivation group, and 53 controls). Both interventions were associated with increased step counts during the intervention period compared with control, with an average increase of 1,624 steps per day. Initial improvements were comparable between the two intervention groups, but the decline in step count during follow-up was slower in the face-to-face group. Additionally, at one-month post-intervention, the face-to-face group also showed a significantly higher total MET-minutes per week (997 MET/week) compared with controls. Both face-to-face and email-based interventions were effective in increasing physical activity during the intervention period. The slower decline in the face-to-face group suggests differences in sustainability between approaches. The results suggest a potential short-term benefit of workplace health promotion programs on physical activity, and that motivational interviewing may support longer-term maintenance of gains. Embedding such hybrid interventions into broader healthy aging strategies, such as those promoted by the Semmelweis-EUniWell Workplace Health Promotion Model Program, offers a promising pathway to address the aging challenge in Hungary and across Europe. Looking ahead, artificial intelligence-driven tools could enhance these programs by delivering personalized feedback, adaptive goal setting, and real-time engagement at scale, complementing human-delivered motivational support and further extending their reach and impact.

Indexed as

Electronic MailExerciseHealth PromotionHealthy AgingMotivational InterviewingWorkplaceAdultAgedFemaleHumansHungaryMaleMiddle AgedMotivationAging populationInternational physical activity questionnaireSemmelweis–EUniWell workplace health promotion model programStep countWorkplace health promotion

Identifiers

PMID41288917
PMCPMC12972271

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.