Precision Health Future Science Platform, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Adelaide, South Australia.
Public Health and Wellbeing Research Group, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Adelaide, South Australia.
Transl Behav Med. 2021 May 25;11(5):1127-1141. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibab003.
Previous reviews have established that workplace wellbeing initiatives are effective at promoting wellbeing, but less is known about which intervention characteristics or "active ingredients" underpin this effectiveness (i.e., behavior change techniques [BCTs]). This review aims to illuminate the connections between the types of BCTs and the level of intervention intensity with intervention effectiveness. A systematic search for peer-reviewed studies evaluating a workplace wellbeing initiative was undertaken across five databases: Medline, Scopus, PsycInfo, and CINAHL (Ovid Emcare). Eligible studies included those that evaluated the effect of a workplace wellbeing initiative on participants' physical wellbeing (e.g., physical activity and quality of life) and psychological wellbeing (e.g., mental health and stress), were published between 2009 and September 2019, and utilized a comparator (e.g., control group or prepost change). Studies were screened in independent duplicate to minimize bias. Effect sizes were calculated. Following removal of duplicates, 1,541 studies were identified and screened for eligibility. Of these, 23 studies reporting 28 comparisons were deemed to meet eligibility criteria. Just over 50% of these studies reported evidence of either a strong or moderate effect across a physical and a psychological outcome, providing a positive indication that workplace wellbeing programs can promote physical and psychological wellbeing in workers. Interventions tended to employ multiple BCTs (mean range 8.1-9.4), however, no discernible patterns between the types or numbers of BCTs employed and intervention effectiveness was found. Further experimental work is required that compares and contrasts workplace wellbeing initiatives to enable a better understanding of how to develop and implement highly effective programs.
先前的综述已经证实，工作场所健康促进计划在促进健康方面是有效的，但对于哪些干预特征或“有效成分”（即行为改变技术 [BCT]）是其有效性的基础知之甚少。本综述旨在阐明 BCT 类型与干预强度级别与干预效果之间的联系。在五个数据库（Medline、Scopus、PsycInfo 和 CINAHL（Ovid Emcare））中进行了一项针对评估工作场所健康促进计划的同行评审研究的系统搜索。符合条件的研究包括那些评估工作场所健康促进计划对参与者身体健康（例如，身体活动和生活质量）和心理健康（例如，心理健康和压力）影响的研究，发表时间在 2009 年至 2019 年 9 月之间，并且使用了对照（例如，对照组或前后变化）。研究在独立的重复中进行筛选，以最大限度地减少偏倚。计算了效应量。去除重复项后，确定了 1541 项研究并进行了资格筛选。其中，有 23 项研究报告了 28 项比较，被认为符合资格标准。这些研究中有略多于 50%报告了在一项身体和一项心理结果方面都具有强或中度效果的证据，这表明工作场所健康促进计划可以促进工人的身体健康和心理健康。干预措施往往采用多种 BCT（平均范围为 8.1-9.4），但没有发现所采用的 BCT 类型或数量与干预效果之间存在明显的关系。需要进一步进行实验性工作，对工作场所健康促进计划进行比较和对比，以便更好地了解如何制定和实施高度有效的计划。
