↓ Skip to main content

The impact of onsite workplace health-enhancing physical activity interventions on worker productivity: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Occupational and environmental medicine, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
282 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The impact of onsite workplace health-enhancing physical activity interventions on worker productivity: a systematic review
Published in
Occupational and environmental medicine, March 2015
DOI 10.1136/oemed-2014-102678
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michelle Jessica Pereira, Brooke Kaye Coombes, Tracy Anne Comans, Venerina Johnston

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of onsite workplace health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) programmes on worker productivity. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42014008750. A search for controlled trials or randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effects of onsite workplace HEPA programmes on productivity levels of working adults was performed. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed, and the inter-rater reliability of the quality assessment was analysed. Qualitative synthesis of available evidence is presented. Eight studies were included in the review. There is consistent evidence that onsite workplace HEPA programmes do not reduce levels of sick leave. There appears to be inconsistent evidence of the impact of onsite workplace HEPA programmes on worker productivity. A high-quality study of an onsite combination (aerobic, strengthening and flexibility) HEPA regime and a moderate-quality study of a Tai Chi programme improved worker productivity measured with questionnaires in female laundry workers and older female nurses, respectively. Two high-quality studies and four moderate-quality studies did not show benefit. Studies that showed benefit were mainly those designed with productivity measures as primary outcomes, delivered to occupations involved with higher physical loads, and had higher compliance and programme intensity. The small number of studies and the lack of consistency among studies limited further analyses. There is inconsistent evidence that onsite workplace HEPA programmes improve self-reported worker productivity. Future high-quality RCTs of onsite workplace HEPA programmes should be designed around productivity outcomes, target at-risk groups and investigate interventions of sufficient intensity. High attendance with improved recording is needed to achieve significant results in augmenting worker productivity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 282 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 277 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 12%
Researcher 30 11%
Student > Bachelor 25 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 6%
Other 52 18%
Unknown 74 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 18%
Social Sciences 29 10%
Sports and Recreations 28 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 9%
Psychology 20 7%
Other 51 18%
Unknown 80 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 December 2020.
All research outputs
#2,801,349
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Occupational and environmental medicine
#693
of 4,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,771
of 281,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Occupational and environmental medicine
#9
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,922 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.