Cited by 223Physical Activity and HealthBehavioral Health and InterventionsWorkplace Health and Well-being

The impact of theory on the effectiveness of worksite physical activity interventions: a meta-analysis and meta-regression

Taylor, Natalie, Conner, Mark, Lawton, Rebecca·2012·Health Psychology Review

Abstract

Background. Despite the potential importance of worksite physical activity interventions, reviews suggest there is currently a lack of clarity regarding their effectiveness. Aim. This meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of worksite interventions designed to promote physical activity and investigate whether (1) interventions explicitly designed based on theory are more effective, and (2) inclusion of specific behaviour change techniques (BCTs) improves effectiveness. Methods. Worksite interventions with a primary aim of increasing physical activity were systematically reviewed. Designs were experimental or quasi-experimental and outcome measures were objective or validated self-report. Interventions were coded based on the extent to which theory/predictors were used to select/develop intervention techniques. A standardised theory-linked taxonomy of 26 BCTs was also used to code interventions. Effects of explicit use of theory, individual techniques and number of BCTs used were assessed using meta-analysis and meta-regression. Results. Twenty-six studies reporting 27 evaluations were included in the meta-analysis and a random effects model produced an overall effect size (d) of 0.21 (95% CI 0.17–0.26). Subgroup analysis indicated that interventions using theory more explicitly were more effective, producing an effect size of 0.34 (95% CI 0.23–0.45; I 2=0%). No significant differences in effect sizes were found between studies that had used individual BCTs and those that had not, and studies that used more techniques were not more effective. Conclusion. Overall, worksite physical activity interventions were effective, but only produced small sized effects on physical activity. Theory-based interventions were more effective.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17437199.2010.533441

Cites

105 of 105 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

Authors
Taylor, N., Conner, M., & Lawton, R.
Affiliations
University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Taylor, Natalie
Venue
Health Psychology Review
Published
2012-03
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
33-73
ISSN
  • 1743-7199 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-7202
OpenAlex
W2066093349
Cited by
223
References
105
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
Keywords
theory-based intervention, behaviour change techniques, physical activity promotion, workplace health promotion, intervention effectiveness

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