ReviewJournal of occupational rehabilitation2026
Economic Evaluations of Physical Exercise at Work: A Scoping Review.
Review in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDespite the well-established positive benefits of physical activity and the recognised consequences of physical inactivity, evidence on its cost and cost-effectiveness remains inconclusive. This scoping review aims to descriptively summarise studies on economic evaluations of workplace physical exercise interventions from both employers and societal perspectives.
methodsThis review was conducted following the JBI and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We included studies assessing economic evaluations of workplace physical exercise programmes from PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Medline, EBSCO, EconLit, The Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database from January 2000 to March 2025. Screening, selection, and data extraction were independently performed by two researchers. Extracted data included study characteristics, population, intervention type, economic evaluation approach, outcomes, and main findings. Results are presented using summary tables along with narrative synthesis.
resultsThe search resulted in 5,007 unique records, of which we included 13 studies published between 2012 and 2025. Of these, most (n = 9) were randomised controlled trials. Occupational settings included sedentary and physically demanding jobs. Interventions included multicomponent programmes (n = 6) combining physical exercise with education, ergonomics, or nutritional guidance, and single-component programmes (n = 7) centred on strength training, stretching, and aerobic activities. Evaluations were conducted from multiple perspectives, reporting various health-related, work-related, and economic outcomes, including productivity, absenteeism, sickness absence, and compensation claims.
conclusionThis review highlights substantial heterogeneity in the economic evaluations of workplace physical exercise interventions, regarding populations, interventions, methods, outcomes, and results. More high-quality research following standardised methodological guidance is needed to support future implementation and decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42742905What 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.