Cited by 21Workplace Health and Well-beingOccupational Health and Safety in WorkplacesPhysical Activity and Health

Is It Time to Re-Shift the Research Agenda? A Scoping Review of Participation Rates in Workplace Health Promotion Programs

Open access
Bensa, Katarina, Širok, Klemen·2023·International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Abstract

Workplace health promotion programmes (WHPPs) are among the most important measures to improve the health and motivation of the ageing workforce. However, they are accompanied with certain challenges, such as low participation rates and higher participation levels of the more health-conscious workers, often failing to engage those who need such interventions the most. Following the PRISMA guidelines, this scoping review examined participation rates reported in articles on WHPPs to identify potential knowledge gaps. The results are worrying: participation rates are not only infrequently reported, but also low. Of the 58 articles, 37 report participation rates, with the majority (20) reporting an average participation rate of less than 50%. Reported participation rates refer either to different target groups, the type of intervention, or to single points in time, which makes it difficult to establish consistent criteria for comparison. We argue that despite the importance of WHPP efficacy, research focus should shift to the determinants of participation, as well as the issue of standardising the reporting of participation rates, alongside the potential problem of reporting bias.

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 · 10.3390/ijerph20032757

Cites

61 of 61 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?

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

1 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bensa, K., & Širok, K.
Affiliations
University of Primorska (SI)
Corresponding author
Bensa, Katarina
Venue
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-02-03
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
2757
ISSN
1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4319318557
Cited by
21
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1
FWCI
1.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
Keywords
participation rates, aging workforce, determinants of participation, reporting bias, reporting guidelines, knowledge gaps
MeSH terms
Health Personnel, Health Promotion, Humans, Motivation, Occupational Health, 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