Efficacy of theory-informed workplace physical activity interventions: a systematic literature review with meta-analyses.

IF 6.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Health Psychology Review Pub Date : 2021-12-01 Epub Date: 2020-01-29 DOI:10.1080/17437199.2020.1718528
Merilyn Lock, Dannielle Post, James Dollman, Gaynor Parfitt
{"title":"Efficacy of theory-informed workplace physical activity interventions: a systematic literature review with meta-analyses.","authors":"Merilyn Lock,&nbsp;Dannielle Post,&nbsp;James Dollman,&nbsp;Gaynor Parfitt","doi":"10.1080/17437199.2020.1718528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This review aimed to assess the efficacy of workplace physical activity interventions; compare the efficacy of those that were and were not informed by behaviour change theory, and outline the effectiveness of different intervention components. A search was undertaken in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Ovid Emcare (previously CINAHL) and SportDiscus. Randomised, non-randomised and cluster-controlled trials with objectively measured physical activity and/or measured or predicted maximal oxygen uptake (VO<sub>2max</sub>) as outcomes were included in the review (83 papers from 79 trials). Random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences were undertaken. Workplace physical activity programmes demonstrated positive overall intervention effects for daily step counts (814.01 steps/day; CI: 446.36, 1181.67; <i>p</i> < 0.01; <i>i</i><sup>2</sup> = 88%) and measured VO<sub>2max</sub> (2.53 ml kg<sup>-1</sup> min<sup>-1</sup>; CI: 1.69, 3.36; <i>p</i> < 0.01; <i>i</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%) with no sub-group differences between theory- and non-theory informed interventions. Significant sub-group differences were present for predicted VO<sub>2max</sub> (<i>p</i> < 0.01), with a positive intervention effect for non-theory informed studies (2.11 ml.kg<sup>-1</sup> min<sup>-1</sup>; CI: 1.20, 3.02; <i>p</i> < 0.01; <i>i</i><sup>2</sup> = 78%) but not theory-informed studies (-0.63 ml kg<sup>-1</sup> min<sup>-1</sup>; CI: -1.55, 0.30; <i>p</i> = 0.18; <i>i</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%). Longer-term follow-ups ranged from 24 weeks to 13 years, with significant positive effects for measured VO<sub>2max</sub> (2.84 ml kg<sup>-1</sup> min<sup>-1</sup>; CI: 1.41, 4.27; <i>p</i> < 0.01; <i>i</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%). Effective intervention components included the combination of self-monitoring with a goal, and exercise sessions onsite or nearby. The findings of this review were limited by the number and quality of theory-informed studies presenting some outcomes, and confounding issues in complex interventions. Future researchers should consider rigorous testing of outcomes of theory-informed workplace physical activity interventions and incorporate longer follow-ups.</p>","PeriodicalId":48034,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Review","volume":"15 4","pages":"483-507"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17437199.2020.1718528","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2020.1718528","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

This review aimed to assess the efficacy of workplace physical activity interventions; compare the efficacy of those that were and were not informed by behaviour change theory, and outline the effectiveness of different intervention components. A search was undertaken in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Ovid Emcare (previously CINAHL) and SportDiscus. Randomised, non-randomised and cluster-controlled trials with objectively measured physical activity and/or measured or predicted maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) as outcomes were included in the review (83 papers from 79 trials). Random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences were undertaken. Workplace physical activity programmes demonstrated positive overall intervention effects for daily step counts (814.01 steps/day; CI: 446.36, 1181.67; p < 0.01; i2 = 88%) and measured VO2max (2.53 ml kg-1 min-1; CI: 1.69, 3.36; p < 0.01; i2 = 0%) with no sub-group differences between theory- and non-theory informed interventions. Significant sub-group differences were present for predicted VO2max (p < 0.01), with a positive intervention effect for non-theory informed studies (2.11 ml.kg-1 min-1; CI: 1.20, 3.02; p < 0.01; i2 = 78%) but not theory-informed studies (-0.63 ml kg-1 min-1; CI: -1.55, 0.30; p = 0.18; i2 = 0%). Longer-term follow-ups ranged from 24 weeks to 13 years, with significant positive effects for measured VO2max (2.84 ml kg-1 min-1; CI: 1.41, 4.27; p < 0.01; i2 = 0%). Effective intervention components included the combination of self-monitoring with a goal, and exercise sessions onsite or nearby. The findings of this review were limited by the number and quality of theory-informed studies presenting some outcomes, and confounding issues in complex interventions. Future researchers should consider rigorous testing of outcomes of theory-informed workplace physical activity interventions and incorporate longer follow-ups.

基于理论的工作场所身体活动干预的有效性:系统文献综述和荟萃分析。
本综述旨在评估工作场所体力活动干预的效果;比较那些了解和不了解行为改变理论的人的疗效,并概述不同干预成分的有效性。在Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Ovid Emcare(以前的CINAHL)和SportDiscus中进行了检索。以客观测量体力活动和/或测量或预测最大摄氧量(VO2max)为结果的随机、非随机和集群对照试验被纳入本综述(来自79项试验的83篇论文)。对平均差异进行随机效应荟萃分析。工作场所身体活动计划对每日步数(814.01步/天;Ci: 446.36, 1181.67;p i2 = 88%),测量VO2max (2.53 ml kg-1 min-1;Ci: 1.69, 3.36;p2 = 0%),理论和非理论知情干预之间没有亚组差异。预测VO2max (p -1 min-1;Ci: 1.20, 3.02;P 2 = 78%),但没有理论依据的研究(-0.63 ml kg-1 min-1;Ci: -1.55, 0.30;p = 0.18;i2 = 0%)。长期随访时间从24周到13年不等,对测量的最大摄氧量(2.84 ml kg-1 min-1;Ci: 1.41, 4.27;p i2 = 0%)。有效的干预措施包括将自我监控与目标相结合,以及在现场或附近进行锻炼。本综述的研究结果受到理论研究的数量和质量的限制,这些研究提出了一些结果,并且在复杂的干预措施中存在混淆问题。未来的研究人员应该考虑对工作场所体力活动干预的结果进行严格的测试,并纳入更长时间的随访。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Psychology Review
Health Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The publication of Health Psychology Review (HPR) marks a significant milestone in the field of health psychology, as it is the first review journal dedicated to this important and rapidly growing discipline. Edited by a highly respected team, HPR provides a critical platform for the review, development of theories, and conceptual advancements in health psychology. This prestigious international forum not only contributes to the progress of health psychology but also fosters its connection with the broader field of psychology and other related academic and professional domains. With its vital insights, HPR is a must-read for those involved in the study, teaching, and practice of health psychology, behavioral medicine, and related areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信