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