Skip to main content

Table 2 Systematic Review Characteristics

From: Understanding how outcomes are measured in workplace physical activity interventions: a scoping review

Author

Publication Date

Quality

Country

Work setting

# of studies

Sample ranges

Intervention

Systematic Reviews

 Conn, V., et al.

2009

Not reporteda

Not reported

Education/Health Government Manufacturing

138

12–5038

Physical Activity-Fitness Motivation Education

 Vuillemin, A., et al.

2011

19 = A

3 = B

11 = C

Europe

Variety

33

14–26,806

Physical Activity

 Schroer, S., et al.

2013

9 = A

6 = C

USA/Australia/Europe

Variety

15

10–48,835

Physical Activity/Nutrition

 Amlani, N., et al.

2014

9 = A

20 = B

8 = C

Developed Countries

Variety

37

43–79,070

Physical Activity

 Malik, S., et al.

2014

31 = A

21 = B

6 = C

Not reported

Education/Health/Government/Commercial

58

32–798

Physical Activity/ Exercise/Counselling/Support Health Promo Message

 Brinkley, A., et al.

2016

4 = A

2 = B

12 = C

Developed Countries

Education/Health/Factory/Corporation

18

30–2118

Physical Activity-team sports, group fitness, team walking

 Shrestha, N., et al.

2016

14 = A

2 = B

4 = C

High Income Nations

Office workers

20

25–443

Physical Activity- workplace changes policy/counselling/information/Multiple interventions

 Reed, J.L., et al.

2017

17 = A

4 = B

3 = C

High Income OECD Nations

Variety

24

26–650

Physical Activity-MVPA/METs

  1. aGrading system is based on study design; A - RCT / B - Quazi-randomized trials, prospective case control, non-RCT/ C - Observational, controlled before-after, qualitative exploratory, cross-sectional, quasi-experimental / D - Other Evidence [28]
  2. NR authors reported RCT, observational and controlled before-after designs but not specific numbers of each
  3. MVPA Moderate to vigorous physical activity, METs metabolic equavalents