Virtanen Marianna, Lallukka Tea, Elovainio Marko, Steptoe Andrew, Kivimäki Mika
School of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland; Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Lancet Public Health. 2025 Jun;10(6):e512-e530. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(25)00095-7.
Workplaces are an important setting for health promotion, offering established infrastructure, daily access to large populations, and opportunities to engage groups that are often under-represented in such initiatives. Although the effectiveness of workplace health promotion has been evaluated in reviews focusing on specific interventions, a comprehensive overview is needed. To address this gap, we present a quality-informed horizontal analysis encompassing 88 reviews and 339 meta-analysed effect estimates published between 2011 and 2024, covering a broad range of workplace health interventions. Mental health and stress reduction were the most frequently studied targets (36%), followed by weight management and cardiometabolic health (25%), health-related behaviours (22%), and musculoskeletal disorders and pain (17%). According to the GRADE assessment, 71 (21%) of the 339 meta-analysed effect estimates provided evidence of moderate quality, and the remainder were categorised as low or very low quality, with none classified as high quality. Mindfulness showed effectiveness across multiple stress and mental health outcomes, and cognitive behavioural techniques, stress management, physically oriented methods, and e-health interventions also showed some effectiveness. Multicomponent interventions had small but measurable effects on weight loss, glucose levels, fruit intake, and seasonal influenza vaccination uptake. A variety of behavioural, physical activity, environmental, multicomponent, and e-health interventions influenced physical activity and sedentary time at work. Consistent with findings found in non-occupational settings, effects at the individual level were generally modest but could be meaningful at both the workplace and population levels. In this Review we also discuss the broader public health implications of workplace health promotion, and highlight the strengths and limitations of the existing evidence and propose directions for future research.
工作场所是促进健康的重要场所，拥有既定的基础设施，每天能接触大量人群，并有机会让那些在此类举措中代表性不足的群体参与进来。尽管已在聚焦特定干预措施的综述中对工作场所健康促进的有效性进行了评估，但仍需要一个全面的概述。为填补这一空白，我们进行了一项基于质量的横向分析，涵盖了2011年至2024年间发表的88篇综述和339项经荟萃分析的效应估计值，涉及广泛的工作场所健康干预措施。心理健康和压力减轻是研究最频繁的目标（36%），其次是体重管理和心脏代谢健康（25%）、与健康相关的行为（22%）以及肌肉骨骼疾病和疼痛（17%）。根据GRADE评估，339项经荟萃分析的效应估计值中有71项（21%）提供了中等质量的证据，其余的被归类为低质量或极低质量，没有一项被归类为高质量。正念在多种压力和心理健康结果方面显示出有效性，认知行为技术、压力管理、以身体为导向的方法和电子健康干预也显示出一定的有效性。多成分干预对体重减轻、血糖水平、水果摄入量和季节性流感疫苗接种率有微小但可测量的影响。各种行为、身体活动、环境、多成分和电子健康干预措施影响了工作中的身体活动和久坐时间。与在非职业环境中发现的结果一致，个体层面的影响通常较小，但在工作场所和人群层面可能具有重要意义。在本综述中，我们还讨论了工作场所健康促进对更广泛公共卫生的影响，并强调了现有证据的优势和局限性，同时提出了未来研究的方向。
