Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17888161›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2007

The (cost-)effectiveness of an individually tailored long-term worksite health promotion programme on physical activity and nutrition: design of a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

Suzan J W Robroek, Folef J Bredt, Alex Burdorf

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Moral issues in workplace health promotion.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2012
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Suzan J W RobroekDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands. s.robroek@erasmusmc.nl
Folef J Bredt
Alex Burdorf

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCardiovascular disease is the leading cause of disability and mortality in most Western countries. The prevalence of several risk factors, most notably low physical activity and poor nutrition, is very high. Therefore, lifestyle behaviour changes are of great importance. The worksite offers an efficient structure to reach large groups and to make use of a natural social network. This study investigates a worksite health promotion programme with individually tailored advice in physical activity and nutrition and individual counselling to increase compliance with lifestyle recommendations and sustainability of a healthy lifestyle. METHODS/

designThe study is a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial with the worksite as the unit of randomisation. All workers will receive a standard worksite health promotion program. Additionally, the intervention group will receive access to an individual Health Portal consisting of four critical features: a computer-tailored advice, a monitoring function, a personal coach, and opportunities to contact professionals at request. Participants are employees working for companies in the Netherlands, being literate enough to read and understand simple Internet-based messages in the Dutch language.A questionnaire to assess primary outcomes (compliance with national recommendations on physical activity and on fruit and vegetable intake) will take place at baseline and after 12 and 24 months. This questionnaire also assesses secondary outcomes including fat intake, self-efficacy and self-perceived barriers on physical activity and fruit and vegetable intake. Other secondary outcomes, including a cardiovascular risk profile and physical fitness, will be measured at baseline and after 24 months. Apart from the effect evaluation, a process evaluation will be carried out to gain insight into participation and adherence to the worksite health promotion programme. A cost-effectiveness analysis and sensitivity analysis will be carried out as well. DISCUSSION: The unique combination of features makes the individually tailored worksite health promotion programme a promising tool for health promotion. It is hypothesized that the Health Portal's features will counteract loss to follow-up, and will increase compliance with the lifestyle recommendations and sustainability of a healthy lifestyle.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN52854353.

Indexed as

ExerciseNutritional Physiological PhenomenaAdultCardiovascular DiseasesCost-Benefit AnalysisCounselingHealth BehaviorHealth PromotionHumansMiddle AgedNetherlandsObesityOccupational Health ServicesPrimary PreventionProgram EvaluationRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID17888161
PMCPMC2099438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.