Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081, BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020 Sep 4;17(1):112. doi: 10.1186/s12966-020-01002-w.
This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis aimed to investigate socioeconomic inequalities in effectiveness on healthy behavior of, and compliance to, workplace health promotion programs.
Dutch (randomized) controlled trials were identified and original IPD were retrieved and harmonized. A two-stage meta-analysis was conducted where linear mixed models were performed per study (stage 1), after which individual study effects were pooled (stage 2). All models were adjusted for baseline values of the outcomes, age and gender. Intervention effects were assessed on physical activity, diet, alcohol use, and smoking. Also, we assessed whether effects differed between participants with low and high program compliance and. All analyses were stratified by socioeconomic position.
Data from 15 studies (n = 8709) were harmonized. Except for fruit intake (beta: 0·12 [95% CI 0·08 0·15]), no effects were found on health behaviors, nor did these effects differ across socioeconomic groups. Only participants with high compliance showed significant improvements in vigorous and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, and in more fruit and less snack intake. There were no differences in compliance across socioeconomic groups.
Workplace health promotion programs were in general not effective. Neither effectiveness nor compliance differed across socioeconomic groups (operationalized by educational level). Even though stronger effects on health behavior were found for participations with high compliance, effects remained small. The results of the current study emphasize the need for new directions in health promotion programs to improve healthy behavior among workers, in particular for those in lower socioeconomic position.
本项个体患者数据(IPD)荟萃分析旨在研究工作场所健康促进计划在健康行为方面的效果和依从性方面的社会经济不平等现象。
确定了荷兰(随机)对照试验,并检索和协调了原始 IPD。进行了两阶段荟萃分析,其中对每项研究进行线性混合模型分析(第 1 阶段),然后汇总个别研究的效果(第 2 阶段)。所有模型均根据结局的基线值、年龄和性别进行调整。干预效果评估了身体活动、饮食、饮酒和吸烟。我们还评估了效果是否在低依从性和高依从性参与者之间存在差异。所有分析均按社会经济地位分层。
协调了 15 项研究(n=8709)的数据。除了水果摄入量(β:0.12 [95%CI 0.08 0.15])外,健康行为方面没有发现效果,也没有发现效果在社会经济群体之间存在差异。只有高依从性的参与者在剧烈和中等至剧烈的身体活动以及更多水果和更少零食摄入方面显示出显著的改善。不同社会经济群体之间的依从性没有差异。
工作场所健康促进计划总体上无效。无论在社会经济群体(以教育程度衡量)方面的有效性还是依从性都没有差异。尽管高依从性的参与者在健康行为方面的效果更强,但效果仍然很小。本研究的结果强调需要为改善工人健康行为制定新的健康促进计划方向,特别是针对社会经济地位较低的工人。