CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 74Physical Activity and HealthWorkplace Health and Well-beingContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems

Workplace pedometer interventions for increasing physical activity

Open access
Freak-Poli, Rosanne LA, Cumpston, Miranda, Albarqouni, Loai, Clemes, Stacy A, Peeters, Anna·2020·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009209.pub3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends undertaking 150 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity per week, but most people do not. Workplaces present opportunities to influence behaviour and encourage physical activity, as well as other aspects of a healthy lifestyle. A pedometer is an inexpensive device that encourages physical activity by providing feedback on daily steps, although pedometers are now being largely replaced by more sophisticated devices such as accelerometers and Smartphone apps. For this reason, this is the final update of this review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of pedometer interventions in the workplace for increasing physical activity and improving long-term health outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) UPDATE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from the earliest record to December 2016. We also consulted the reference lists of included studies and contacted study authors to identify additional records. We updated this search in May 2019, but these results have not yet been incorporated. One more study, previously identified as an ongoing study, was placed in 'Studies awaiting classification'. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of workplace interventions with a pedometer component for employed adults, compared to no or minimal interventions, or to alternative physical activity interventions. We excluded athletes and interventions using accelerometers. The primary outcome was physical activity. Studies were excluded if physical activity was not measured. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. When studies presented more than one physical activity measure, we used a pre-specified list of preferred measures to select one measure and up to three time points for analysis. When possible, follow-up measures were taken after completion of the intervention to identify lasting effects once the intervention had ceased. Given the diversity of measures found, we used ratios of means (RoMs) as standardised effect measures for physical activity. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies, recruiting a total of 4762 participants. These studies were conducted in various high-income countries and in diverse workplaces (from offices to physical workplaces). Participants included both healthy populations and those at risk of chronic disease (e.g. through inactivity or overweight), with a mean age of 41 years. All studies used multi-component health promotion interventions. Eleven studies used minimal intervention controls, and four used alternative physical activity interventions. Intervention duration ranged from one week to two years, and follow-up after completion of the intervention ranged from three to ten months. Most studies and outcomes were rated at overall unclear or high risk of bias, and only one study was rated at low risk of bias. The most frequent concerns were absence of blinding and high rates of attrition. When pedometer interventions are compared to minimal interventions at follow-up points at least one month after completion of the intervention, pedometers may have no effect on physical activity (6 studies; very low-certainty evidence; no meta-analysis due to very high heterogeneity), but the effect is very uncertain. Pedometers may have effects on sedentary behaviour and on quality of life (mental health component), but these effects were very uncertain (1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Pedometer interventions may slightly reduce anthropometry (body mass index (BMI) -0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.45 to 0.18; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). Pedometer interventions probably had little to no effect on blood pressure (systolic: -0.08 mmHg, 95% CI -3.26 to 3.11; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and may have reduced adverse effects (such as injuries; from 24 to 10 per 100 people in populations experiencing relatively frequent events; odds ratio (OR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.84; low-certainty evidence). No studies compared biochemical measures or disease risk scores at follow-up after completion of the intervention versus a minimal intervention. Comparison of pedometer interventions to alternative physical activity interventions at follow-up points at least one month after completion of the intervention revealed that pedometers may have an effect on physical activity, but the effect is very uncertain (1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Sedentary behaviour, anthropometry (BMI or waist circumference), blood pressure (systolic or diastolic), biochemistry (low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, total cholesterol, or triglycerides), disease risk scores, quality of life (mental or physical health components), and a

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd009209.pub3

Cites

174 of 174 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • According to a recent meta-analysis, there are minor and non-significant incremental increases in quality of life associated with fitness trackers.

    “According to a recent meta-analysis [49] there are minor and non-significant incremental increases in quality of life associated with fitness trackers.”

    From Economic evaluation of wearable fitness trackers versus metformin for preventing type 2 diabetes in the UK population (2025) · cites this paper as [49]

    The Main Results (page unavailable) discuss quality of life after workplace pedometer interventions, but describe the mental-health-component effect as very uncertain and based on one study. The passage does not establish a minor increase or report that an increase was statistically non-significant; the claim also omits the workplace setting and limited outcome measured. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • One review found no sustained effects on body composition following completion of wearable activity-tracker-based interventions, whereas another found small but non-significant beneficial effects up to 1-2 years (BMI -0.21 kg/m2, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.65).

    “Two reviews examined whether effects on body composition were sustained long term following the completion of wearable activity-tracker-based interventions; one review found no sustained effects, 43 whereas another found small but non-significant beneficial effects up to 1-2 years (BMI -0•21 kg/m², 95% CI -1•06 to 0•65; appendix p 31). 11”

    From Effectiveness of wearable activity trackers to increase physical activity and improve health: a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. (2022) · cites this paper as [43]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • For physical activity, Larsen and colleagues reported an effect size of 0.54 (95% CI 0.34-0.73; p<0.0001) and Freak-Poli and colleagues reported a ratio of means of 1.37 (95% CI 1.11-1.71; p=0.004), similar to or marginally larger than other reviews (centred around SMD 0.4).

    “For physical activity, Larsen and colleagues 51 reported an effect size of 0•54 (95% CI 0•34-0•73; p<0•0001) and Freak-Poli and colleagues 43 reported a ratio of means of 1•37 (95% CI 1•11-1•71; p=0•004; appendix p 30), which is similar to, or marginally larger, than the effect sizes reported in other reviews (centred around an SMD of 0•4; figure 1).”

    From Effectiveness of wearable activity trackers to increase physical activity and improve health: a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. (2022) · cites this paper as [43]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 177 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Freak-Poli, R. L., Cumpston, M., Albarqouni, L., Clemes, S. A., & Peeters, A.
Affiliations
  • School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine; Monash University; Melbourne Australia
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Bond University (AU)
  • Loughborough University (GB)
  • Deakin University (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-07-21
Volume
2020
Issue
7
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd009209.pub3
OpenAlex
W4249004226
Cited by
74
References
177
Citations by year
2025: 16 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • Bond University Research Portal (Bond University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Keywords
workplace interventions, physical activity, health promotion, working adults, long-term health effects, chronic disease risk, health behavior change, sedentary behavior, diabetes risk, cancer risk, body mass index, alcohol consumption, physical activity guidelines adherence, accelerometer, mobile application

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review