Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33604445›Full record

ReviewSSM - population health2021

The effectiveness of workplace health promotion programs on self-perceived health of employees with a low socioeconomic position: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

Hanneke van Heijster, Cécile R L Boot, Suzan J W Robroek, Karen Oude Hengel, Jantien van Berkel, Emely de Vet, Pieter Coenen

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in SSM - population health, 2021. 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
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Hanneke van HeijsterDepartment of Social Sciences, Chair Group Consumption & Healthy Lifestyles, Wageningen University & Research, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Cécile R L BootDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Suzan J W RobroekErasmus University Medical Center, Department of Public Health, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Karen Oude HengelErasmus University Medical Center, Department of Public Health, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Jantien van BerkelDepartment of Social Sciences, Chair Group Consumption & Healthy Lifestyles, Wageningen University & Research, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Emely de VetDepartment of Social Sciences, Chair Group Consumption & Healthy Lifestyles, Wageningen University & Research, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Pieter CoenenDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Wageningen University & Research · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLErasmus MC · NLNetherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to evaluate whether workplace health promotion programs improve self-perceived health of employees with a low socioeconomic position (SEP), and whether differential effects exist between individuals with a low SEP for gender, marital status or age. Individual participant data from six Dutch intervention studies aiming at promoting healthy behavior and preventing obesity in the work setting, with a total of 1906 participants, were used. The overall intervention effect and interaction effects for gender, marital status and age were evaluated using two-stage meta-analyses with linear mixed regression models. In the first stage effect sizes of each study were estimated, which were pooled in the second stage. Compared to control conditions, workplace health promotion programs did not show an overall improvement in self-perceived health of employees with a low SEP (β0.03 (95%CI: -0.03 to 0.09)). Effects did not differ across gender, marital status and age. Future research could be focused on the determinants of self-perceived health next to health behavior to improve the health of employees with a low SEP.

Indexed as

EmployeesLow socioeconomic positionSelf-perceived healthWorkplace health promotion

Identifiers

PMID33604445
PMCPMC7873680
OpenAlexW3123180399

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.