Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24905421›Full record

SynthesisJournal of occupational and environmental medicine2014

Health promotion in small business: a systematic review of factors influencing adoption and effectiveness of worksite wellness programs.

Kira McCoy, Kaylan Stinson, Kenneth Scott, Liliana Tenney, Lee S Newman

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Kira McCoyFrom Hampshire College (Ms McCoy), Amherst, Mass; the Center for Worker Health and Environment (Ms Stinson, Mr Scott, Ms. Tenney, and Dr Newman), Colorado School of Public Health; Department of Medicine (Dr Newman), School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora.
Kaylan Stinson
Kenneth Scott
Liliana Tenney
Lee S Newman

Funding

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH EDUCATION AND RESEARCH CENTERS (T42)T42OH009229 · OH · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI NEWMAN, LEE S · 2007 to 2024
$28.8M
NIOSH CDC HHS T42 OH009229
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the evidence regarding the adoption and efficacy of worksite health promotion programs (WHPPs) in small businesses.

methodsPeer-reviewed research articles were identified from a database search. Included articles were published before July 2013, described a study that used an experimental or quasiexperimental design and either assessed adoption of WHPPs or conducted interventions in businesses with fewer than 500 employees. A review team scored the study's rigor using the WHO-adapted GRADEprofiler "quality of evidence" criteria.

resultsOf the 84 retrieved articles, 19 met study inclusion criteria. Of these, only two met criteria for high rigor.

conclusionsFewer small businesses adopt WHPPs compared with large businesses. Two high-rigor studies found that employees were healthier postintervention. Higher quality research is needed to better understand why small businesses rarely adopt wellness programs and to demonstrate the value of such programs.

Indexed as

Occupational Health ServicesHealth PromotionHealth Services ResearchHumansTreatment OutcomeWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID24905421
PMCPMC4471849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.