Cited by 741Physical Activity and HealthWorkplace Health and Well-beingHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 150 of the 150 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Meta-Analysis of Workplace Physical Activity Interventions

Open access
Conn, Vicki S., Hafdahl, Adam R., Cooper, Pamela S., Brown, Lori M., Lusk, Sally L.·2009·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Context Most adults do not achieve adequate physical activity levels. Despite the potential benefits of worksite health promotion, no previous comprehensive meta-analysis has summarized health and physical activity behavior outcomes from such programs. This comprehensive meta-analysis integrated the extant wide range of worksite physical activity intervention research.Evidence acquisition Extensive searching located published and unpublished intervention studies reported from 1969 through 2007. Results were coded from primary studies. Random-effects meta-analytic procedures, including moderator analyses, were completed in 2008.Evidence synthesis Effects on most variables were substantially heterogeneous because diverse studies were included. Standardized mean difference (d) effect sizes were synthesized across approximately 38,231 subjects. Significantly positive effects were observed for physical activity behavior (0.21); fitness (0.57); lipids (0.13); anthropometric measures (0.08); work attendance (0.19); and job stress (0.33). The significant effect size for diabetes risk (0.98) is less robust given small sample sizes. The mean effect size for fitness corresponds to a difference between treatment minus control subjects' means on VO2max of 3.5 mL/kg/min; for lipids, -0.2 on the ratio of total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein; and for diabetes risk, -12.6 mg/dL on fasting glucose.Conclusions These findings document that some workplace physical activity interventions can improve both health and important worksite outcomes. Effects were variable for most outcomes, reflecting the diversity of primary studies. Future primary research should compare interventions to confirm causal relationships and further explore heterogeneity.

Overview

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 · 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.06.008

Cites

150 of 150 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 148 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Shephard, 1996, Worksite fitness and exercise programs: a review of methodology and health impact, Am J Health Promot, 10, 436, 10.4278/0890-1171-10.6.436 · DOI
  2. Horowitz, 1987, Effects of a worksite wellness program on absenteeism and health care costs in a small federal agency, Fit Bus, 167
  3. Lane, 1998, Mood regulation among corporate workers: effects of exercise on mood, J Sports Sci, 16, 87
  4. Oden, 1989, Worker productivity, job satisfaction, and work-related stress: Influence of an employee fitness program, Fit Bus, 3, 198
  5. Musich, 2001, A case study of 10-year health risk appraisal participation patterns in a comprehensive health promotion program, Am J Health Promot, 15, 237, 10.4278/0890-1171-15.4.237 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–500 of 739

Metadata

Authors
Conn, V. S., Hafdahl, A. R., Cooper, P. S., Brown, L. M., & Lusk, S. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Missouri (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Conn, Vicki S.
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-10
Volume
37
Issue
4
Pages
330-339
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1984831078
Cited by
741
References
148
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 106 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 62 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 59 · 2015: 52 · 2014: 60 · 2013: 55 · 2012: 41
FWCI
3.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Nursing Research (R01NR009656)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
workplace physical activity interventions, workplace health promotion, physical activity behavior, cardiorespiratory fitness, VO2max, serum lipids, TC/HDL-C ratio, anthropometric measures, employee attendance, occupational stress, diabetes risk, fasting blood glucose, intervention heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Health Status, Humans, Job Satisfaction, Leisure Activities, Motor Activity, Physical Fitness, Quality of Life, Program Evaluation, Health Behavior, Effect Modifier, Epidemiologic, Occupational Health, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Workplace

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