Effectiveness of workplace wellness programmes for dietary habits, overweight, and cardiometabolic health: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The workplace offers a unique opportunity for effective health promotion. We aimed to comprehensively study the effectiveness of multicomponent worksite wellness programmes for improving diet and cardiometabolic risk factors. We did a systematic literature review and meta-analysis, following PRISMA...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe Lancet. Public health Vol. 6; no. 9; pp. e648 - e660
Main Authors Peñalvo, José L, Sagastume, Diana, Mertens, Elly, Uzhova, Irina, Smith, Jessica, Wu, Jason H Y, Bishop, Eve, Onopa, Jennifer, Shi, Peilin, Micha, Renata, Mozaffarian, Dariush
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Elsevier Ltd 01.09.2021
Elsevier
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN2468-2667
2468-2667
DOI10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00140-7

Cover

More Information
Summary:The workplace offers a unique opportunity for effective health promotion. We aimed to comprehensively study the effectiveness of multicomponent worksite wellness programmes for improving diet and cardiometabolic risk factors. We did a systematic literature review and meta-analysis, following PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed-MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Education Resources Information Center, from Jan 1, 1990, to June 30, 2020, for studies with controlled evaluation designs that assessed multicomponent workplace wellness programmes. Investigators independently appraised the evidence and extracted the data. Outcomes were dietary factors, anthropometric measures, and cardiometabolic risk factors. Pooled effects were calculated by inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. Potential sources of heterogeneity and study biases were evaluated. From 10 169 abstracts reviewed, 121 studies (82 [68%] randomised controlled trials and 39 [32%] quasi-experimental interventions) met the eligibility criteria. Most studies were done in North America (57 [47%]), and Europe, Australia, or New Zealand (36 [30%]). The median number of participants was 413·0 (IQR 124·0–904·0), and median duration of intervention was 9·0 months (4·5–18·0). Workplace wellness programmes improved fruit and vegetable consumption (0·27 servings per day [95% CI 0·16 to 0·37]), fruit consumption (0·20 servings per day [0·11 to 0·28]), body-mass index (–0·22 kg/m2 [–0·28 to –0·17]), waist circumference (–1·47 cm [–1·96 to –0·98]), systolic blood pressure (–2·03 mm Hg [–3·16 to –0·89]), and LDL cholesterol (–5·18 mg/dL [–7·83 to –2·53]), and to a lesser extent improved total fat intake (–1·18% of daily energy intake [–1·78 to –0·58]), saturated fat intake (–0·70% of daily energy [–1·22 to –0·18]), bodyweight (–0·92 kg [–1·11 to –0·72]), diastolic blood pressure (–1·11 mm Hg [–1·78 to –0·44]), fasting blood glucose (–1·81 mg/dL [–3·33 to –0·28]), HDL cholesterol (1·11 mg/dL [0·48 to 1·74]), and triglycerides (–5·38 mg/dL [–9·18 to –1·59]). No significant benefits were observed for intake of vegetables (0·03 servings per day [95% CI –0·04 to 0·10]), fibre (0·26 g per day [–0·15 to 0·67]), polyunsaturated fat (–0·23% of daily energy [–0·59 to 0·13]), or for body fat (–0·80% [–1·80 to 0·21]), waist-to-hip ratio (–0·00 ratio [–0·01 to 0·00]), or lean mass (1·01 kg [–0·82 to 2·83]). Heterogeneity values ranged from 46·9% to 91·5%. Between-study differences in outcomes were not significantly explained by study design, location, population, or similar factors in heterogeneity analyses. Workplace wellness programmes are associated with improvements in specific dietary, anthropometric, and cardiometabolic risk indicators. The heterogeneity identified in study designs and results should be considered when using these programmes as strategies to improve cardiometabolic health. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
JLP, JS, RM, and DM conceptualised and developed the research protocol and methodology. PS, JO, JLP, and RM developed standardised data extraction tools and underlying calculation algorithms for standardised estimates. JLP, DS, EM, IU, JS, JHYW, EB, and JO reviewed the literature, selected eligible studies, and performed data extraction. JLP and DS did the statistical analysis. JLP, DS, and DM interpreted results, and drafted, reviewed, and edited the manuscript. JLP and DM supervised the study. JLP and DS accessed and verified the data. All authors have access to the underlying data. JLP and DM were responsible for the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. All authors have revised and approved the final text. JLP, as guarantor of this manuscript, affirms that it is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained and registered.
Contributors
ISSN:2468-2667
2468-2667
DOI:10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00140-7