SynthesisBMJ open2022
Effectiveness of interventions to improve health behaviours of health professionals: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Beginner's Guide to Applying Large Language Models in Behavioral Interventions.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Behavioral change interventions, theories, and techniques to reduce physical inactivity and sedentary behavior in the general population: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2024Article
- "If I die for touching him, let me die": a rapid ethnographic assessment of cultural practices and Ebola transmission in high-risk border regions of Tanzania.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Comparison of Health Behaviors of Healthcare Workers and the General Public in Israel: A Cross-Sectional Survey.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Association of Dental Status and Smokeless Tobacco (SLT) Using Behavior Among Bangladeshi Dental Patients: A Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Analysis.Substance use : research and treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve the health behaviours of health professionals.
designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: Database searches: Medline, Cochrane library, Embase and CINAHL. REVIEW
methodsThis systematic review used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to compare randomised controlled trials of health professionals, published between 2010 and 2021, which aimed to improve at least one health behaviour such as physical activity, diet, smoking status, mental health and stress. Two independent reviewers screened articles, extracted data and assessed quality of studies and reporting. The quality of articles was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment tool and the completeness of intervention reporting was assessed. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome assessed was change in behaviour between intervention and control groups from baseline to follow-up.
resultsNine studies met the eligibility criteria, totalling 1107 participants. Health behaviours targeted were mental health and stress, physical activity, and smoking cessation, physical activity and nutrition. Six interventions observed significant improvements in the health behaviour in the intervention compared with control groups. Seven of the studies selected in person workshops as the mode of intervention delivery. The quality of the included studies was high with 80% (7/9) graded as moderate or strong.
conclusionsAlthough high heterogeneity was found between interventions and outcomes, promising progress has occurred across a variety of health behaviours. Improving reporting and use of theories and models may improve effectiveness and evaluation of interventions. Further investigation is needed to recommend effective strategies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021238684.
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.