ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
The MedXFit-study - CrossFit as a workplace health intervention: a one-year, prospective, controlled, longitudinal, intervention study.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors for adherence to a physical activity promotion program in the workplace: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- From Performance to Health: A Global Scientometric Analysis of the Evolution of CrossFit Research.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Optimizing High-Intensity Functional Training Performance: Individualized Load Prescription vs. Standardized Weights.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Acute physiological responses and performance determinants in HyroxFrontiers in physiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Workplace health interventions aim to motivate employees toward healthy behaviors to improve fitness and health in the long-term. We investigated whether CrossFit® is an effective training concept to achieve these goals in inactive employees with sedentary occupations. Methods: The study followed a prospective, controlled intervention design. Employees were invited to participate in intervention group (IG) or control group (CG) on their own preferences. Inclusion criteria were a predominantly sedentary occupation and execution of less than two muscle and/or mobility enhancing training sessions per week at the time of enrolling. The IG did at least two times a week a CrossFit training of 1 h. Mobility, strength, well-being, and back-issues were measured at the beginning, after 6, and 12 months. Participants in the CG were free to choose any other activities offered at the same time (e.g., circuit training, meditation, full body stability training). Adherence, respectively, behavioral change and maintenance qualities were evaluated based on the COM-B system and presence of behavior maintenance motives. Results: 89 employees were enrolled into the trial, from where 21 dropped out due to external factors (24%). From the remaining participants, 10 out of 39 (26%) in the IG and 1 out of 29 (4%) in the CG stopped for intrinsic reasons, leading to a non-adherence to the intervention of 22 percentage points. Motivation for behavioral change and maintenance in the IG was primarily driven by enhanced physical and psychological capability. Development of physical capability was evident by significant improvements ( Conclusion: CrossFit is a motivating training concept that led to long-term health and fitness improvements in inactive employees doing sedentary work and should be given greater consideration in workplace health promotion.
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.