ReviewBMJ open2022
Evidence base of economic evaluations of workplace-based interventions reducing occupational sitting time: an integrative review.
Review in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06149364 (Cost-effectiveness and Impact of a Workplace-based Intervention to Reduce Occupational Sitting Time Among Office-based Workers), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Cost-effectiveness and Impact of a Workplace-based Intervention to Reduce Occupational Sitting Time Among Office-based Workers: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Economic Evaluation of Two Scalability Strategies for Nationwide Dissemination of an Occupational Sun Safety Intervention in a Randomized Trial.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2025Article
- The burden of prolonged sedentary behavior imposed by uberization.Sports medicine and health science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo review the evidence on the economic evaluations of workplace-based interventions that are designed to reduce prolonged periods of occupational sitting.
designAn integrative review. DATA SOURCES: The search was conducted in 11 databases, including PubMed, Scopus, PsychINFO, NHS-EED, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ProQuest, Cochrane library, Sportdiscus, Research Paper in Economics (RePeC), the International Health Economic Association (IHEA) and EconLit. The databases were searched for articles published from inception to January 2022. Subsequent citation searches were also conducted in Google Scholar. The items of the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist were used for quality appraisal of the included studies.
resultsThis review included five randomised control trails, including 757 office-based workers in high-income countries. The median quality appraisal score based on the CHEC items was 14 points (a range of 9-18). The mean duration of interventions was 33 weeks (a range of 4-52 weeks). Overall, the studies reported economic benefit when implemented to reduce occupational sitting time but no effect on absenteeism. From the societal perspective, the interventions (eg, the use of a sit-stand desk) were cost-effective.
conclusionThe economic impact of workplace interventions implemented to reduce occupational sitting time is evident; however, the existing evidence is limited, which precludes strong conclusions. Cost-effectiveness is not often evaluated in the studies exploring workplace interventions that address occupational sitting time. Workplace interventions are still in the development and testing phase; thus, the challenge for future studies is to include economic evaluation of interventions addressing sedentary behaviour in workplaces. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021226275.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.