↓ Skip to main content

Promoting physical activity in the workplace: A systematic meta-review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Occupational Health, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
224 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Promoting physical activity in the workplace: A systematic meta-review
Published in
Journal of Occupational Health, September 2017
DOI 10.1539/joh.16-0245-ra
Pubmed ID
Authors

Areeya Jirathananuwat, Krit Pongpirul

Abstract

IntroductionPhysically active (PA) people have a lower risk of various diseases, compared to those with sedentary lifestyles. Evidence on the effects of PA promoting programs in the workplace is large, and several systematic reviews (SR) and/or meta-analyses (MA) have been published. However, they have failed to consider factors that could influence interventions. This paper aimed to classify and describe interventions to promote PA in the workplace based on evidence from SR/MA.MethodA literature search for SR/MA was done using PubMed, Web of Science, and Science Direct (January 2006-February 2015). Quality assessment of SR/MA was performed using AMSTAR. The PRECEDE-PROCEED model was used for classifying the interventions into predisposing, enabling, reinforcing, environment, and policy domains of focus.ResultsEleven SR/MA included 220 primary studies, of which 139 (63%) were randomized controlled trials. Of 48 interventions identified, 22 (46%) and 17 (35%) focused on predisposing or enabling employees to have more PA, respectively. Of the 22 predisposing factors, 6 were information delivery, 5 were self-motivation, and 11 were program training. The enabling approaches were 12 instrument resources and 5 health service facilities. The reinforcing approaches were 4 incentive and 3 social support. The remaining interventions focused on the environmental development and policy regulation.ConclusionsThis systematic meta-review classified interventions using appropriate framework and described the intervention pattern.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 224 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 224 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 19%
Student > Bachelor 25 11%
Researcher 23 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 5%
Other 26 12%
Unknown 76 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 14%
Sports and Recreations 28 13%
Psychology 19 8%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Other 24 11%
Unknown 80 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,964,325
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Occupational Health
#395
of 568 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,501
of 318,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Occupational Health
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 568 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,401 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.