Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31624537›Full record

ArticleChiropractic & manual therapies2019

Implementation strategies, and barriers and facilitators for implementation of physical activity at work: a scoping review.

Anne Garne-Dalgaard, Stephanie Mann, Thomas Viskum Gjelstrup Bredahl, Mette Jensen Stochkendahl

Registry-linked trialAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Chiropractic & manual therapies, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06411769 (Evidence-based Intervention to Improve Walking Engagement in El Paso, Texas), which is not on this map. Cited by 32 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 6 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.

NCT06411769 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Evidence-based Intervention to Improve Walking Engagement in El Paso, Texas

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Texas, El PasoRan2024 to 2027Enrolled406ConditionsActivity Trackers, Physical ActivityArms50K4LIfe, SMS Text Messaging, Individual, School
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Economic Evaluations of Physical Exercise at Work: A Scoping Review.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Anne Garne-Dalgaard1Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-4985-4061
Stephanie Mann1Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Thomas Viskum Gjelstrup Bredahl1Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Mette Jensen Stochkendahl1Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Inactivity and sedentary lifestyle have led experts to recommend an increase in structured, workplace-based physical activity (PA) initiatives. Previous studies on workplace-based PA have only shown moderate and short-term effects. This has been attributed to the lack of clear implementation strategies and understanding of factors that may hinder or enable uptake of PA. To ensure long-term, sustainable outcomes, there is a need for a better understanding of implementation strategies, and barriers and facilitators to workplace-based PA. Method: A scoping review of studies investigating implementation approaches and factors affecting uptake of workplace-based PA was conducted. Qualitative and quantitative articles published in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, or PsycINFO between 2008 and 2018 evaluating the implementation of PA were included. Data on study characteristics, evaluation, and implementation methods applied were systematically extracted. Two reviewers extracted, coded, and organised factors affecting uptake using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Results: After dual, blinded screening of titles and abstracts, 16 articles reporting on eight studies were included in the review. Several different methods of implementation were applied, including information meeting, kick-off events, and "change agents" as the most common. A total of 109 factors influencing implementation were identified, consisting of 57 barriers and 52 facilitators. Barriers most often related to the TDF domains Conclusion: Our review has highlighted the multilevel factors affecting the uptake of workplace-based PA and underpins the complexities in implementation of such initiatives. The published literature predominantly provides details from the employees' perspectives on factors that need to be addressed and a lack of attention to these factors will cause them to hamper uptake of PA. The analysis of barriers and facilitators provides a theoretical foundation to guide future intervention design. However, further research is needed to fully understand the success or failure of implementation processes.

Indexed as

ExerciseWorkplaceHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicQualitative ResearchBarriersFacilitatorsImplementationPhysical activityScoping reviewTheoretical Domains FrameworkWorkplaces

Identifiers

PMID31624537
PMCPMC6784342

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.