The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of organisational-level interventions at work on employees’ health: a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Organisational-level workplace interventions are thought to produce more sustainable effects on the health of employees than interventions targeting individual behaviours. However, scientific evidence from intervention studies does not fully support this notion. It is therefore important to explore conditions of positive health effects by systematically reviewing available studies. We set out to evaluate the effectiveness of 39 health-related intervention studies targeting a variety of working conditions. METHODS: Systematic review. Organisational-level workplace interventions aiming at improving employees' health were identified in electronic databases and manual searches. The appraisal of studies was adapted from the Cochrane Back Review Group guidelines. To improve comparability of the widely varying studies we classified the interventions according to the main approaches towards modifying working conditions. Based on this classification we applied a logistic regression model to estimate significant intervention effects. RESULTS: 39 intervention studies published between 1993 and 2012 were included. In terms of methodology the majority of interventions were of medium quality, and four studies only had a high level of evidence. About half of the studies (19) reported significant effects. There was a marginally significant probability of reporting effects among interventions targeting several organisational-level modifications simultaneously (Odds ratio (OR) 2.71; 95% CI 0.94-11.12), compared to those targeting one dimension only. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the heterogeneity of the 39 organisational-level workplace interventions underlying this review, we were able to compare their effects by applying broad classification categories. Success rates were higher among more comprehensive interventions tackling material, organisational and work-time related conditions simultaneously. To increase the number of successful organisational-level interventions in the future, commonly reported obstacles against the implementation process should be addressed in developing these studies.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · Cited by 19,575
Updated Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group
van Tulder, M., Furlan, A., Bombardier, C., & Bouter, L. (2003) · Spine · doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000065484.95996.af · Cited by 2,180
Effects of occupational stress management intervention programs: A meta-analysis.
Richardson, K. M., & Rothstein, H. R. (2008) · Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/1076-8998.13.1.69 · Cited by 1,374
Meta-analysis of workplace physical activity interventions
Conn, V. S., Hafdahl, A. R., Cooper, P. S., Brown, L. M., & Lusk, S. L. (2009) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.06.008 · Cited by 741
Bias in odds ratios by logistic regression modelling and sample size
Nemes, S., Jonasson, J. M., Genell, A., & Steineck, G. (2009) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-56 · Cited by 437
Which clinical studies provide the best evidence?
Barton, S. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7256.255 · Cited by 384
Nielsen, K., & Abildgaard, J. S. (2013) · Work & Stress · doi:10.1080/02678373.2013.812358 · Cited by 316
Cited by
Van Eerd, D., Munhall, C., Irvin, E., Rempel, D., Brewer, S., van der Beek, A. J., Dennerlein, J. T., Tullar, J., Skivington, K., Pinion, C., et al. (2016) · Occupational and Environmental Medicine · doi:10.1136/oemed-2015-102992 · Cited by 334
Fox, K. E., Johnson, S. T., Berkman, L. F., Sianoja, M., Soh, Y., Kubzansky, L. D., & Kelly, E. L. (2022) · Work & Stress · doi:10.1080/02678373.2021.1969476 · Cited by 227
Singh, J., Karanika-Murray, M., Baguley, T., & Hudson, J. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17196987 · Cited by 132
Effects of mobile mindfulness on emergency department work stress: A randomised controlled trial
Xu, H. (., Eley, R., Kynoch, K., & Tuckett, A. (2022) · Emergency Medicine Australasia · doi:10.1111/1742-6723.13836 · Cited by 42
Puzia, M. E., Green, J., Clarke, C., Cloonan, S., & Huberty, J. (2022) · Environmental and Occupational Health Practice · doi:10.1539/eohp.2022-0001-oa · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Montano, D., Hoven, H., & Siegrist, J.
- Venue
- BMC Public Health
- Published
- 2014-02-08
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 135-135
- ISSN
- 1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2144480207
- Cited by
- 303
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 3.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of organisational-level interventions at work on employees’ health: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2458-14-135
- The paper
- Montano, D., Hoven, H., & Siegrist, J. (2014). Effects of organisational-level interventions at work on employees’ health: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-135
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.