Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32696580›Full record

SynthesisObesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity2020

Socio-economic inequalities in the effectiveness of workplace health promotion programmes on body mass index: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

Suzan J W Robroek, Karen M Oude Hengel, Allard J van der Beek, Cécile R L Boot, Frank J van Lenthe, Alex Burdorf, Pieter Coenen

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

7 authors.

Suzan J W RobroekDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9427-9676
Karen M Oude HengelDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Allard J van der BeekDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Cécile R L BootDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Frank J van LentheDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Alex BurdorfDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Pieter CoenenDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This individual participant data meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of workplace health promotion programmes on body mass index (BMI) across socio-economic groups and whether study and intervention characteristics explained inequalities in effectiveness. Studies were eligible if they assessed the effect of a workplace health promotion programme on BMI in the Netherlands, included workers of at least two different socio-economic positions (SEPs) and had a study design with premeasurement and postmeasurement and control condition. Data of 13 studies presenting 16 interventions (5183 participants) were harmonized. In a two-stage meta-analysis, the interaction between intervention and SEP on BMI was tested with linear mixed models for each study. Subsequently, the interaction terms were pooled. The influence of study and intervention characteristics on the effectiveness of workplace health promotion programmes was evaluated using meta-regression analyses. Compared with control conditions, workplace health promotion programmes overall showed a statistically non-significant 0.12 kg/m

Indexed as

Body Mass IndexHealth PromotionWorkplaceHumansNetherlandsResearch Designinequityobesitysocio-economic inequalitiesworkplace

Identifiers

PMID32696580
PMCPMC7583467

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.