CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 41Workplace Health and Well-beingHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionPhysical Activity and Health

Modest effects of a controlled worksite environmental intervention on cardiovascular risk in office workers

Engbers, Luuk H., van Poppel, Mireille N.M., van Mechelen, Willem·2007·Preventive Medicine
DOI 10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.11.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective To present the effects of a relatively modest environmental intervention on biological cardiovascular risk indicators.Method A controlled trial, including two worksites. Measurements (i.e., body composition, blood pressure and serum cholesterol) took place at baseline and at 3- and 12-month follow-up. The 12-month environmental intervention (The Hague, The Netherlands, 2004) consisted of: a 'Food'-part: to stimulate healthier food choices by means of product information in the canteen, and a 'Steps'-part: focused on stimulating stair use by means of motivational prompts in staircases and on elevator doors.Results Significant differences in change between groups (n=540) in favor of the intervention group were found on: [1] total cholesterol for women (-0.35 mmol/l); [2] HDL for men at 3 months (0.05 mmol/l) and 12 months (0.10 mmol/l); and [3] the total-HDL ratio for the total intervention group at 3 and 12 months (-0.45 mmol/l). Both groups showed a decrease in all body composition values at both follow-ups. A significant difference in change in systolic BP was found in favor of the control group (approximately 4 mm Hg), due to an increase in the intervention group at both follow-ups.Conclusions Based on the contrasting results, this modest environmental intervention was ineffective in reducing cardiovascular risk in a population of office workers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.11.005

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Engbers, L. H., van Poppel, M. N. M., & van Mechelen, W.
Affiliations
Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
Venue
Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-04
Volume
44
Issue
4
Pages
356-362
ISSN
0091-7435 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.11.005
OpenAlex
W1976684892
Cited by
41
References
35
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
Keywords
cardiovascular risk, office workers, healthy food choices, stair climbing, body composition, blood pressure, serum cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, workplace health promotion
MeSH terms
Adult, Anthropometry, Blood Pressure, Body Composition, Cardiovascular Diseases, Cholesterol, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Occupational Health Services, Program Evaluation, Biomarkers, Health Behavior, 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