A healthier-workplace-nuffield-health-whitepaper

A Healthier
Workplace
How employers can reduce
physical inactivity
A Nufﬁeld Health White Paper commissioned by Sport England
NH_healthier_whitepaper V7.indd 1 15/06/2018 11:57

2 A Healthier Workplace: How employers can reduce physical inactivity
Nuffield Health:
Aidan Innes, Impact and Social Outcomes Analyst
Sophie Attwood, Research Fellow
Martyn Cutts, Health & Wellbeing Physiologist
John Doyle, National Physiotherapy Lead
Davina Deniszczyc, Charity Director and Medical Director (Primary Care), Nuffield Health
Ben Kelly, Head of Clinical Research & Outcomes
Sport England:
Mike Diaper, Executive Director, Sport England
Melissa Bennett, Strategic Lead New Partnerships, Sport England
Report published by Nuffield Health 2018
Edited by Public Policy Projects and Policy First
Copyright Nuffield Health 2018
Public Policy Projects:
Ben Howlett, Managing Director, Public Policy Projects
Rachel Wolf, Founding Partner, Public First
Jonathan Dupont, Director Policy and Research, Public First

Introduction 06
Deﬁnitions 05
Executive summary 07
The importance of physical activity 12
The evolution of government policy on physical activity 21
NICE recommendations on physical activity 20
Review methods and ﬁndings 28
The employer’s perspective 33
Appendices 50
Contents
3A Healthier Workplace: How employers can reduce physical inactivity

Introduction
Increasing physical activity is one of the most
powerful interventions known for improving
public health. At present, a third of working-
age adults do not meet the Chief Medical
Officer’s recommendation for 150 weekly
minutes of moderate intensity exercise, and
over half of those spend less than 30 minutes
a week being active.
More than two-thirds of adults spent at least
two hours a day watching TV or using a
computer.
Physical inactivity is particularly concentrated
among lower socioeconomic groups; those in
the bottom quintile of the office for National
Statistics’ Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)
are twice as likely as those in the top to be
inactive. The most disadvantaged suffer a
significantly higher incidence of cardiovascular
disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers.
Physical inactivity is related but not equivalent
to sedentary behaviour. There is now growing
evidence to suggest that sedentary behaviour
may be an independent risk factor for health.
In today’s knowledge economy, it is estimated
that up to 80% of a typical working day can be
spent in a seated position.
Equally, standing all day is not the same thing
as physical activity, and many retail or manual
workers are not meeting the recommended
targets for physical exercise.
“Our working world has changed over the
past 60 years as the proportion of jobs
involving production have more than halved.
Car ownership has more than doubled.”
- Davina Deniszczyc, Charity Director and
Medical Director (primary care), Nuffield
Health.
This decline in manual labour and active
commuting has had a significant effect on
the amount of physical activity performed
in our daily routine – and one that is hard to
compensate for purely in leisure time. Physical
inactivity can have real business and economic
consequences. Workplace sickness alone is
estimated to cost the economy in England
£5.5bn a year.
Physically active employees have lower levels of
absenteeism or presenteeism, greater efficiency,
and are less likely to suffer from stress or
depression.
To provide employers with up-to-date guidance,
Sport England commissioned Nuffield Health
to produce this white paper, collating the latest
evidence and best practice on:
» Which interventions work to increase physical
activity and reduce sedentary behaviour in a
workplace context.
» What interventions work with under-
represented groups who are particularly
likely to be inactive, such as female workers
or lower socioeconomic groups.
» What are the potential challenges and
facilitators when it comes to practically
implementing these recommendations.
This following pages outline how we approached
this task and our findings. It represents an
overview of the interventions that UK employers
might wish to consider when looking to support
their employees in leading healthier, more active
working lives.

Physical activity is defined as activity that requires a significant
level of physical energy (eg running or dancing) this raises your
heartrate and makes breathing harder.
Sedentary behaviour, is defined as long periods of being fully
sedentary (eg sitting or lying down).
By under-represented groups, we are referring to groups such
as female workers, lower socioeconomic groups or those with
lower levels of educational attainment. Many of these are at
higher risk of physical inactivity.
Metabolic Equivalent (MET) is the amount of energy required to
perform an activity, with being at rest benchmarked at one.
A result is statistically significant if it unlikely to have occurred
given the null hypothesis, which is designed to represent we
would expect from random chance. Statistical significance,
however, is not the same thing as clinical significance. It does not
tell us about the magnitude of the effect.
Interventions are classified as having strong evidence when
more than 66% of relevant studies find a statistically significant
difference in physical activity or sedentary behaviour associated
with the intervention versus a control group.
Interventions are classified as having moderate evidence when
50-65% of relevant studies find a statistically significant difference
in physical activity or sedentary behaviour associated with the
intervention versus control group.
Interventions are classified as having weak evidence when less
than 50% the of relevant studies find a statistically significant
difference in physical activity or sedentary behaviour associated
with the intervention versus a control group.
Definitions used

To better understand the current evidence base
on workplace interventions to increase physical
activity, Nuffield Health systematically searched
the literature, narrowing down a long list of
3809 studies to 107 relevant, recent evidence-
based studies. A full list is available in the
appendix.
Out of these 107 studies, Nuffield Health
identified 12 types of intervention that
had been studied: 10 individual interventions,
as well another 51 studies that investigated
multicomponent interventions, dividing these
between those that included an online element
and those that were offline only.
Nuffield Health judged interventions to have a
strong evidence base where more than 66% of
studies found a statistically significant effect, and
a moderate evidence base where 50-65% of
studies found a significant effect.
The assessment of these interventions, outlined
on page 7, identified four interventions with
strong evidence; four with moderate evidence
and a further four with weak evidence of efficacy.
Executive Summary
3809
STUDIES
107
EVIDENCE-BASED
STUDIES
51
STUDIES INVESTIGATED
MULTICOMPONENT
INTERVENTIONS
In short, there is good evidence that employers
can make a difference to the physical activity
and sedentary behaviour of their workforce. This
review suggests that sedentary behaviour may
be easier to influence than physical activity, with
both active desks and activity prompts potentially
showing effective results.
Nevertheless, there is also good evidence that
group support and providing exercise facilities,
both on and off the worksite, can be effective.
Multicomponent interventions, particularly those
that included an online element, also had good
evidence for effectiveness.
There is weak evidence for the effectiveness of
written information when combined with any
other intervention.
There is much less specific evidence on the
impact of workplace interventions for under-
represented groups, such as those with low
levels of education or income. Nevertheless,
the evidence that is available suggests a similar
approach to that followed for employees is likely
to work: there is reasonable evidence to suggest
that supervised exercise, group support, and
multicomponent interventions can be effective.

1) Unsupervised exercise including walking.
Employees are encouraged or provided
resources to take part in unsupervised
exercise at onsite facilities, or designated
walking routes. Moderate evidence of
effectiveness.
2) Worksite supervised exercise classes.
A fitness professional delivered exercise
class at the worksite. Strong evidence of
effectiveness.
3) Supervised exercise classes off worksite.
A fitness professional delivered exercise class
not at the worksite. Moderate evidence of
effectiveness.
4) Group support. Organised group sessions
where employees come together for health
education, to monitor progress, agree physical
activity goals or identify challenges to change.
Strong evidence of effectiveness.
5) Incentives. Providing employees with value
rewards for behaviour. Insufficient evidence;
6) Individual coaching. Participants receive
one-to-one coaching to increase physical
activity. Insufficient evidence.
7) Activity prompts. Software, email or other
messages encouraging breaks in extended
sedentary time. Moderate evidence of
effectiveness.
8) Active desks. Sit-stand desks / treadmill
desks added to the working environment
to encourage reductions in sedentary time.
9)Written health education. Print-based
written content that provides advice on how to
achieve reductions in sitting time or increases
in physical activity such as posters or booklets.
Weak evidence of effectiveness.
10) Web based interventions. Utilising online
support such as websites, apps, and or
emails to encourage behaviour change.
Moderate evidence of effectiveness.
11) Offline only multicomponent interventions.
Combining multiple of the above and other
offline individual interventions to increase
physical activity or reduce sedentary
behaviour. Weak evidence of effectiveness.
12) Online Offline Muliticomponent
Interventions. Combining both online and
offline interventions to increase physical
activity or reduce sedentary behaviour.
Interventions aimed at increasing
physical activity

“Workers who have been on
their feet all day are often
surprised to be told that
they have not done enough
physical activity.”

Key recommendations for
putting this into practice
To sense check the findings, Nuffield Health organised a series
of workshops with leading employers. We wanted to hear their
experience of the challenges and opportunities of putting
some of these interventions into practice. The employers
Nuffield Health spoke to stressed;
The importance of culture
Leadership should come from the top, but often there is a
reluctance in leadership to intrude on their workers, personal lives.
Every workplace is different
Activity desks and on-site exercise classes can work for office
workers, but factory workers often don’t have that flexibility and
are already standing for much of the day.
Details matter
Active desks may reduce sedentary behaviour, but without
adequate guidance employees may stand for too long, proving
counterproductive.
There is limited understanding of the difference
between reducing physical inactivity and sedentary
activity
Many of the employers involved in the research had seen strong
results from health kiosks providing employees with basic data on
blood pressure, body fat and BMI.
Providing information can be surprisingly powerful
Workers who have stood on their feet all day in a shop or factory,
are often surprised to be told that they still have not done enough
physical activity.

The importance of physical activity
Increasing physical activity is one of the most
powerful interventions known for improving
public health. Low physical activity is one of the
top 10 leading causes of disease and disability
in England1
while globally it is estimated to be
responsible around 6% of deaths, the fourth
highest risk factor for global mortality.2
1
Public Health England, Health matters: getting every adult active every day, 2016, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-getting-every-
adult-active-every-day/health-matters-getting-every-adult-active-every-day, (accessed 14 February 2018).
2
Department of Health, Start Active, Stay Active: A report on physical activity for health from the four home countries’ Chief Medical Officers, 2011, https://www.
gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/216370/dh_128210.pdf, (accessed 14 February 2018).
3
4
While the recommendations from the World
Health Organization (WHO) and the UK Chief
Medical Officer suggest that adults should be
active for at least two and a half hours per week,
significant benefits come from even very low
levels of exercise. One estimate suggests that if,
in the UK, the activity of those currently inactive
was increased by that low level it would prevent
one in six deaths.4
Scientifically, physical activity is defined as “any
bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles
that requires energy expenditure”, and measured
by its Metabolic Equivalent (MET), or the amount
of energy required to perform it.
While most attention in public policy has
focussed on increasing the quantity of physical
activity, there is also growing evidence to
suggest that extended periods of being fully
sedentary – sitting or lying down – may be
an independent risk factor for health. In other
words, it is not enough to go to the gym every
evening if you spend the rest of the day not
moving from your seat.
At present, data from the 2016 Health Survey
suggests that a third (33%) of English working-
age adults fail to meet the aerobic guidelines for
150 minutes of moderate intensity exercise (see
Figure 1, Page 12).
All-cause mortality by 30%
Cardiovascular disease by up to 35%
Type 2 diabetes by up to 40%
Breast cancer by 20%
Colon cancer by 30%
Depression by up to 30%
Hip fractures by up to 68%
Dementia by up to 30%
By exercising your cardiovascular,
musculoskeletal and motivational
systems, regular physical activity causes
those systems to become more efficient,
and reduces the risk of3
Even among those meeting the aerobic guidelines, more than half do not meet the muscle-
strengthening guidelines. Overall, just 34% of working-aged men and 27% of working-aged
women meet both recommendations (see Figure 2, Page 12).

For working aged adults, the UK Chief Medical Officer sets four key recommendations5
How physically active are we?
“Adults should aim to be active daily. Over a week, activity
should add up to at least 150 minutes (Two and a half hours)
of moderate intensity activity in bouts of ten minutes or more
– one way to approach this is to do 30 minutes on at least five
days a week.”
“Adults should also undertake physical activity to improve muscle
strength on at least two days a week.”
“Alternatively, comparable benefits can be achieved through
75 minutes of vigorous intensity activity spread across the week
or a combination of moderate and vigorous intensity activity.”
“All adults should minimise the amount of time spent being
sedentary (sitting) for extended periods.”
5
Department of Health, Start Active, Stay Active: A report on physical activity for health from the four home countries’ Chief Medical Officers, 2011,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/216370/dh_128210.pdf, (accessed 14 February 2018).
Being at rest is benchmarked as a MET of 1;
Light activities are those such as ironing (2.3), cleaning (2.5) or a stroll (2.5);
Moderate activities are those like painting (3), hoovering (3.5) or playing golf (4.3);
Vigorous activities are those like aerobic dancing (6.5), singles tennis (8) or running a mile in
10 minutes (10).
As a rough guide:

Figure 1: Summary of activity by age (%)
Figure 2: Working age adults aged (19-64) meeting physical activity recommendations (%)
Meets
neither
guideline
Meets muscle-
strengthening
but not MVPA
guidelines
Meets aerobic
(MVPA) but
not muscle-
strenthening
guidelines
Meets both
guidelines
WomenMen
0510152025303540
(%)
(Meets aerobic guidelines) (Some activity) (Low activity) (Inactive)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ 19-64
(%)
(HealthSurveyforEngland2016)

“At present, data from
the 2016 Health Survey
suggests that a third
of working-age adults
fail to meet the aerobic
guidelines for 150 minutes
of moderate intensity
exercise.”

Levels of physical inactivity may be even
higher than this. While official statistics are
largely based on self-reported data, individuals
tend to overestimate their levels of physical
activity. More objective measures, based on
technological or accelerometery data suggests
that only 6% of men and 4% of women may meet
the target levels of activity.6
There is not yet enough scientific data to set
quantitative thresholds for unsafe levels of
sedentary behaviour. It is known that both
genders spend on average between three to six
hours per day performing sedentary activities
where they are sat or lying down (see Figure 3).
More than two-thirds of adults spent at least two
hours a day watching TV or using a computer.7
Figure 3: Median sedentary time per day broken down by working week and gender (%)
6
7
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Weekday (Men) Weekend (Men) Weekday (Women) Weekend(Women)
16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ All
(Hours)

Compared to other higher-income countries, WHO data (shown in figure 4) suggests
that a relatively high proportion of the UK population is insufficiently active.
Figure 4: Comparative national index of insufficiently active (%)
Age-standardised estimate, 2010, WHO
Physical inactivity is particularly concentrated among
lower socioeconomic groups. Those in the bottom
quintile of the Office for National Statistics’ (ONS)
Index of Multiple Deprivation are twice as likely as
those in the top to be inactive (see Figure 7, Page 17).
While the relationship between workplace activity and
socio-economic status is complicated – many blue
collar workers spend much of their work standing up,
and there does not seem to be a significant differences
in the likelihood of active commuting – there is
evidence that the more advantage tend to be more
physically active in their leisure time.
This is one significant driver behind the sharp
distinctions in healthy living expectancy experienced
by different socio-economic groups. Men living in the
bottom 10% of areas ranked by deprivation live 9 fewer
years than those who live in the top 10%, while women
live 7 fewer years.8
The most disadvantaged suffer a
significantly higher incidence of cardiovascular disease,
type 2 diabetes and some cancers.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CookIslands
SaudiArabia
Kuwait
Bahamas
Malta
Qatar
TrinidadandTobago
Nauru
NewZealand
UnitedArabEmirates
Barbados
UnitedKingdom
Ireland
Portugal
Cyprus
Japan
RepublicofKorea
Belgium
Italy
Singapore
SaintKittsandNevis
UnitedStatesofAmerica
Uruguay
Spain
Sweden
Luxemborg
Andorra
Norway
Denmark
Austria
Australia
Czechia
France
Finland
Canada
Latvia
Chile
Slovenia
Germany
Seychelles
Poland
Lithuania
Hungary
Slovakia
Croatia
Netherlands
Greece
Estonia
(%)
8
Public Health England, Health profile for England, 2017, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-profile-for-england/chapter-5-inequality-in-health,
(accessed 14 February 2018).

“There is evidence that
the more advantaged
tend to be more
physically active in
their leisure time.”

Figure 5: Summary of activity level by ONS Index of multiple deprivation (%)
Least deprived 2nd 3rd 4th Most deprived
Meets aerobic guidelines Some activity Low activity Inactive
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

9
HM Government, Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation, 1999, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/265576/4386.pdf,
10
HM Government, A Sporting Future for All, 2000, http://www.lsersa.org/old/modernisation/sportfutureforall.pdf, (accessed 14 February 2018).
11
HM Government, Moving More, Living More: The Physical Activity Olympic and Paralympic Legacy for the Nation, 2014, https://www.gov.uk/government/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279657/moving_living_more_inspired_2012.pdf, (accessed 14 February 2018).
12
HM Government, Sporting Future: A New Strategy for an Active Nation, 2015, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/486622/Sporting_Future_ACCESSIBLE.pdf, (accessed 14 February 2018).
13
Sport England, Sport England: Towards an Active Nation, 2016, https://www.sportengland.org/media/10629/sport-england-towards-an-active-nation.pdf,

The evolution of government policy
on physical activity
While the importance of physical activity
for health has been understood for some
times, the current threshold of 150 weekly
minutes of moderate-intensity activity
was not specified until a joint publication
by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
and American College of Sports Medicine
(ACSM) in 1995.9
These guidelines were rapidly adopted
by the WHO and other countries, with
the UK matching suit in the 1996 Strategy
Statement on Physical Activity and the
1999 White Paper Saving Lives: Our
Healthier Nation.
This was followed by a new sports strategy
in 2000 with A Sporting Future for All10
and by the 2004 Game Plan, which
broadened out the focus from improving
elite performance to tackling the health
and economic burden created by the UK’s
relatively low level of physical activity.
Game Plan’s headline target was an
ambition for 70% of the population to
achieve 150 minutes of moderate activity
by 2020. The current self-reported rate
for over 16-year-old adults meeting this is
62%, suggesting this goal is unlikely to be
met.
Over the last decade, increasing physical
activity has grown in prominence in the
public health policy agenda. As part of
the legacy of the 2012 Olympics, the
Government pledged to create “a much
more physically active nation”, setting out
a new goal in 2012 to “have a year-on-year
increase in the number of adults doing
150 minutes of exercise per week (in bouts
of 10 minutes or more) and a year-on-year
decrease in those who are inactive.”12
In 2015, the Government published a
new sporting strategy Sporting Future:
A New Strategy for an Active Nation,
which introduced a new outcomes-
based framework and a broadened focus
on all physical activity, rather than just
participation in sport.
Responding to this, Sport England’s
current five-year strategy Sport England:
Towards an Active Nation has allocated
25% of its resources to tackling physical
inactivity, stressing the need to ensure that
everyone feels comfortable taking part in
part in physical activity, “regardless of age,
background or level of ability.”13
This includes a new focus on under-
represented groups such as women,
the elderly, disabled people and lower
socio-economic groups.

14
Thomas, R and Dimsdale, N, A Millennium of UK Data, Bank of England OBRA dataset, http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/Pages/onebank/
threecenturies.aspx, (accessed 14 February 2018).
15
adult-active-every-day/health-matters-getting-every-adult-active-every-day (accessed 14 February 2018).
16
adult-active-every-day/health-matters-getting-every-adult-active-every-day (accessed 14 February 2018).
17
Thomas, R and Dimsdale, N, A Millennium of UK Data, Bank of England OBRA dataset, http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/Pages/onebank/
threecenturies.aspx, (accessed 14 February 2018).
18
19
NICE, Physical activity in the workplace, 2008, https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph13/chapter/1-Recommendations, (accessed 14 February 2018).
Over the past 60 years, production jobs have
decreased from 42% to 15%.14
While car
ownership has more than doubled from 31%
to 75%.15
In today’s knowledge economy, it is
estimated that up to 80% of a typical workday
can be spent in a seated position, with the
average European employee spending around
five hours per day sedentary at work.
The role of employers
The decline in manual labour and active
commuting has had a significant effect on the
amount of physical activity someone undertakes
in their daily routine – and one that is hard to
compensate for purely in leisure time. Compared
to the 1960s, a UK citizen is now fifth less active,
and on current trends are estimated to be a third
less active again by 2030.16
Figure 6: Employment share by industry (%)17
Physical inactivity can have real business and economic consequences. Physically active employees
have lower levels of absenteeism or presenteeism, lower efficiency, and are less likely to suffer from
stress or depression. Workplace sickness alone is estimated to cost the economy in England £5.5bn a
year.18
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2014
2016
Agricultural, Forestry and Fishing Manufacturing Production Services
(Health Survey for England 2016)

“ Workplace sickness
alone is estimated to
cost the economy in
England £5.5bn a year. “

To provide employers with up to date guidance, Sport England commissioned Nuffield Health to
collate evidence, collating the latest and best practice on improving workplace wellbeing:
Nuffield Health compiled an up to date systematic
review of the scientific literature on workplace
interventions to reduce physical inactivity and
sedentary behaviour;
1) Which interventions work to increase
physical activity and reduce sedentary
behaviour in a workplace context?
While previous evidence reviews exist for increasing
physical activity in the workplace none have focussed
specifically on the needs of underserved groups;
2) What interventions work with underserved
groups who are particularly likely to be
inactive, such as female workers or lower
socio-economic groups?
After developing our short list of interventions,
Nuffield Health ran a series of workshops consulting
with leading employers on their own experiences
of trying to encourage greater employee physical
activity.
3) What are the potential challenges and
facilitators when it comes to practically
implementing these recommendations?

NICE recommendations on
physical activity in the workplace
The National Institute for Health and Care
Excellence (NICE), the Government’s
agency responsible for collating scientific
evidence and developing official public
health guidance, has set out its own
recommendations for how employers can
increase physical activity in the workplace.19
This outlines:
1) Policy and planning. Develop an
organisation-wide plan or policy to
encourage and support employees to be
more physically active. This should:
» include measures to maximise the
opportunity for all employees to
participate;
» be based on consultation with staff
and should ensure they are involved
in planning and design, as well as
monitoring activities, on an ongoing
basis;
» be supported by management and have
dedicated resources;
» set organisational goals and be linked
to other relevant internal policies
(for example, on alcohol, smoking,
occupational health and safety, flexible
working or travel);
» link to relevant national and local policies
(for example, on health or transport).
Introduce and monitor an organisation-wide,
multi-component programme to encourage
and support employees to be physically
active. This could be part of a broader
programme to improve health. It could
include:
» flexible working policies and incentive
schemes;
» policies to encourage employees to walk,
cycle or use other modes of transport
involving physical activity (to travel to and
from work and as part of their working
day);
» the dissemination of information (including
written information) on how to be more
physically active and on the health
benefits of such activity. This could include
information on local opportunities to be
physically active (both within and outside
the workplace) tailored to meet specific
needs, for example, the needs of shift
workers;
» ongoing advice and support to help
people plan how they are going to increase
their levels of physical activity;
» the offer of a confidential, independent
health check administered by a suitably
qualified practitioner and focused on
physical activity.
2) Implementing a physical activity
programme.

3) Components of the physical activity.
Encourage employees to walk, cycle or use
another mode of transport involving physical
activity to travel part or all the way to and from
work (for example, by developing a travel plan).
Help employees to be physically active during
the working day by:
» where possible, encouraging them to move
around more at work (for example, by walking
to external meetings);
» putting up signs at strategic points and
distributing written information to encourage
them to use the stairs rather than lifts if they
can;
» providing information about walking and
cycling routes and encouraging them to take
short walks during work breaks;encouraging
them to set goals on how far they walk and
cycle and to monitor the distances they cover.
Employers should take account of the nature
of the work and any health and safety issues.
For example, many people already walk long
distances during the working day, while those
involved in shift work may be vulnerable if
walking home alone at night.

What is the evidence base?
To better understand the current evidence base
on workplace interventions to increase physical
activity, Nuffield Health systematically searched
six electronic databases (Medline, Embase,
AMED, The Cochrane Library, The King’s Fund
and DH-Data) for eligible studies, narrowing down
a long list of 3809 studies to 107 that met the full
eligibility criteria.
The full methodology and criteria are set out in
Appendix A.
Review method and findings
27Studies aimed to reduce
sedentary beaviour
33Studies were conducted in
an office-based cohort
107Studies covered
46,823 participants
In aggregate, the final list of 107 relevant studies covered:
Focus. 27 studies aimed to reduce sedentary
behaviour specifically and the remaining
80 studies focussed on promoting physical
activity;
Country. 38 studies conducted in the USA; 12 in
the UK; 10 in Australia; six each in Denmark and
the Netherlands; four in Belgium; three each in
Canada, Finland, Germany and Japan; two each in
Spain, Taiwan and Sweden; and one study in Brazil,
France, Iran, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal,
Singapore, South Africa and Switzerland. Four
studies included data from more than one country;
Type of work. 33 studies were conducted
in an office-based cohort and a further 22
based in an education setting (eg school or
university). Sixteen studies were conducted
in healthcare staff, six in factory-based staff,
three in manual workers (eg construction) and
one in retail or service staff;20
Methodology. 69 randomised-controlled trials, 17
quasi-experimental studies, 14 cluster randomised
controlled trials, four randomised crossover trials
and three controlled trials;
Size. In total, the 107 studies covered 46,823
participants, with sample sizes ranging from
10 to 9,786 participants;
Reporting. 53 studies using self-report methods
(eg questionnaires), while 54 used objective
measures (eg physical activity monitors or
physiological tests).

On which interventions does evidence exist?
Out of these 107 studies, 10 types of individual intervention that had been studied were identified,
and another 51 studies that looked at multicomponent interventions:
Interventions aimed at increasing physical activity:
20
Nuffield Health could not classify the setting in 26 studies as the samples included participants with varying occupations, for example, a trial based in a large,
distributed organisation containing multiple functions.
1) Unsupervised exercise including
walking. Employees are encouraged
or provided resources to take part in
unsupervised exercise at onsite facilities, or
designated walking routes;
4) Group support. Organised group sessions
where employees come together for health
education, to monitor progress, agree physical
activity goals or identify Challenges to change;
2) Worksite supervised exercise classes.
A fitness professional delivered exercise
class at the worksite;
5) Incentives. Providing employees with valued
rewards for behaviour;
3) Supervised exercise classes off
worksite. A fitness professional delivered
exercise class not at the worksite;
6) Individual Coaching. Participants receive one-
to-one coaching to increase physical activity.

Interventions aimed at reducing sedentary behaviour;
Multicomponent interventions
Which interventions work?
Nuffield Health judged an intervention to
have strong evidence if more than 66% of
relevant studies found a statistically significant
effect compared to a control group where no
intervention was used.
Nuffield Healh classify studies where a significant
effect is found as ‘Association +’, and other
studies as ‘Association - ’. If between 50%
and 66% of studies found a significant effect,
the study assessed the intervention to have
moderate evidence, and anything below was
classified as weak evidence. The complete list
of studies, classified by intervention is included
in Appendix 2, and they have been graphically
summarised the findings in Figure 7, Page 29.
Criteria for judging the strength of the
evidence base
Strong
Over 66% (two thirds) of studies find
a statistically significant positive
difference (‘Association +’) between
control and intervention groups
Moderate
Between 50-66% find a significant
effect, or there is just one study and it
is judged significant
Weak
Under 50% of studies find a significant
effect
7) Activity prompts. Software, email or
other messages encouraging breaks in
extended sedentary time.
9) Written health education. Print-based written
content that provides on how to achieve
reductions in sitting time or increases in physical
activity such as posters or booklets.
8) Active desks.
Sit-stand desks / treadmill desks added
to the working environment to encourage
reductions in sedentary time.
10) Web based interventions.
Utilising online support such as websites, apps,
and or emails to encourage behaviour change.
7) Activity prompts. Software, email or
other messages encouraging breaks in
extended sedentary time.
9) Written health education. Print-based written
content that provides on how to achieve
reductions in sitting time or increases in physical
activity such as posters or booklets.
11) Offline Only Multicomponent
Interventions. Combining multiple of
the above and other offline individual
interventions to increase physical activity
or reduce sedentary behaviour.
12) Online + Offline Muliticomponent
Interventions. Combining both online and
offline interventions to increase physical
activity or reduce sedentary behaviour.

» there is strong evidence that supervised
workplace exercise and group support can
increase physical activity, while active desks
can reduce sedentary behaviour;
» there is moderate evidence that supervised
exercise outside the workplace and
unsupervised exercise increases physical
activity, activity prompts reduce sedentary
behaviour and that web-based interventions
can improve both;
» there is weak evidence that written health
education is effective, although this was
based only on a small number of studies;
» there is insufficient evidence to judge the
effectiveness of incentives and individual
coaching for increasing physical activity,
which only had 1 study each.
Using this methodology, it was found that:
Figure 7: Effective versus ineffective intervention types, total number of studies
Association + Association -
Sedentary
behaviour
Physical activity Sedentary behaviour and/ or
physical activity
No.ofStudies
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
ActivityPrompts
ActiveDesks
UnsupervisedExercise
WorkplaceSupervisedExercise
SupervisedExercise
ofWorkplace
GroupSupport
Incentives
IndividualCoaching
WrittenHealthEducation
WebBasedInterventions
Online+OfflineMulticomponent
OfflineOnlyMulticomponent

For the multicomponent interventions, the
study found that there was strong evidence
(74%) of effectiveness for interventions that
combined both online and offline components,
while interventions that made use of only offline
interventions had relatively weak evidence (47%).
Beyond web-based support, the most popular
utilised components were written education
(30 studies), unsupervised exercise (22 studies),
group support (26 studies), incentives (12
studies) individual coaching (10 studies) and
environmental changes to the workplace (10
studies), such as the provision of cycle shelters or
the creation of spaces to exercise.
Care should be taken when drawing conclusions
from this data. The lack of evidence from a study
in relation to an intervention’s efficiency does not
necessarily mean an intervention was ineffective.
Many of the studies had poor designs, with many
otherwise promising interventions failing to
display significant statistical differences between
the intervention and control conditions as both
saw significant improvements in physical activity.
Equally, the literature review only looked at
statistical significance rather than effect size,
showing how large a difference an intervention
could be expected to make.
It was not attempted to calculate the cost
effectiveness of any intervention.
There is a clear tension between our finding both
that multicomponent offline only interventions
were ineffective, and also that multiple specific
offline interventions that did work.
In aggregate however, there is good evidence
that employers can make a difference to the
physical activity and sedentary behaviour of
their workforce. This review suggests that
sedentary behaviour may be easier to influence
than physical activity, with both active desks and
activity prompts potentially effective.
Nevertheless, there is also good evidence that
group support and providing exercise facilities,
both on and off the worksite, can be effective.
By contrast, there is only weak evidence for the
effectiveness of written information when not
combined with any other intervention.
Analysis

What works for under-represented
groups?
There is a relatively small evidence base looking
at the effectiveness of interventions targeted
specifically at under-represented groups, with
the research screening process identifying 21
relevant studies:
» 14 studies explored interventions targeted
at female employees. The most common
intervention trialled was supervised
worksite exercise (four studies), followed
by a combination of online and offline
multicomponent interventions (three studies);
» Seven studies looked at employees in
routine or semi-routine occupations, with
six of those focussed on online and offline
multicomponent interventions;
» One study looked at a web-based intervention
for a low educated group;
» One study looked at using activity prompts to
reduce sedentary behaviour in female office
workers. This study found no effect, but it
would require a larger evidence base to make
a definitive judgement.
Aggregating this data, it was found
that:
» there is strong evidence that supervised
worksite exercise can increase physical
exercise in underserved groups, and that a
combined offline and online multicomponent
approach can improve both physical activity
and reduce sedentary behaviour;
» there is moderate evidence that group
support can increase physical activity;
» there is weak evidence that offline only
interventions are effective, with just one in five
studies finding a significant effect;
» there is inconclusive evidence of the impact
of supervised off-worksite exercise, activity
prompts, web-based interventions or written
health education. (All of these only had one
study);
there is no evidence on the effectiveness of
active desks, unsupervised exercise, incentives
and individual coaching.
In short, there is much less specific evidence on
the impact of workplace interventions for under-
represented groups. Nevertheless, the evidence
available suggests a similar approach to that
followed for all employees is likely to work:
there is reasonable evidence that supervised
exercise, group support, and multicomponent
interventions can be effective.
A full description of the 21 studies is contained
in Appendix C, and is graphically summarised in
Figure 8, Page 32.

Figure 8: Effective versus ineffective intervention types, for under-represented groups
How to put this into practice
While there is good evidence that employers
can increase physical activity among their
employees, there is much less evidence looking
at how this advice varies by workplace or
demographic:
» Active desks and activity prompts may reduce
sedentary behaviour among office workers, for
example, but they have much less relevance for
other occupations in retail or manual labour.
These types of professions are exactly where
many of the under-served groups where
relatively bad health outcomes are more likely
to be found;
» Not every employer will be able to afford or
have the physical space to implement every
type of intervention. Worksite supervised
exercise, for example, requires an employer to
not only provide suitable professionals to run
sessions, but also sufficient onsite facilities,
including a space for exercise and changing
areas. Activity prompts may not have quite as
good an evidence base as active desks but are
likely to be significant cheaper to implement;
» The specific details of how an intervention
is implemented can make a real difference.
Active desks may reduce sedentary behaviour
– but without adequate guidance, employees
may seek to stand with them all the time, which
is not necessarily healthy either.
No.ofStudies
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Physical activitySedentary
behaviour
Sedentary behaviour and/ or
physical activity
ActivityPrompts
ActiveDesks
UnsupervisedExercise
WorkplaceSupervisedExercise
SupervisedExercise
ofWorkplace
GroupSupport
Incentives
IndividualCoaching
WrittenHealthEducation
WebBasedInterventions
Online+Offline
Multicomponent
OfflineOnlyMulticomponent

The most frequently recurring themes of that exercise were that:
Culture change is as important as
‘harder’ interventions studied in the
evidence review. Facilitators should
work hard to be as friendly and
approachable as possible. Leadership
must come from the top, but often
those in senior management are
relatively unhealthy. While few would
dispute the importance of employee
health, there is often a reluctance to
intrude on their workers’ personal lives
or be seen as overly interfering.
Employers and employees only have a
limited understanding of the difference
between reducing physical inactivity and
sedentary activity. If you have stood on
your feet all day in a shop or factory, it
can come as an unpleasant surprise to be
told that you still have not done enough
physical activity for the day.
Providing information can be
surprisingly powerful. One
intervention with no systematic data
available, but that the participants
found highly effective, was the use
of health kiosks. These are places
that provide basic data on blood
pressure, body fat and BMI. This
not only catalysed initial behaviour
change, but allowed employees to
monitor their progress a few months
down the line.
The intervention must be adapted
to the type of workplace. On site
exercise classes can work for office
workers, but factory workers don’t
have that kind of flexibility to fit in
physical activity around the rest of
their schedule.
Employer View
“We still find it’s a culture thing. If your team are active, you’ll go. If you’re in a team where your
leader isn’t interested, you won’t. It’s senior leader and culture-driven.”
- Health and wellbeing lead, financial services company
Employer View
“I think any senior person you speak to about employee health they’ll say of course it isn’t
unimportant, it’s more what it means in personal terms which is, do we want to intrude? Are we
pushing the boundaries too far if we’re asking them not only to do the job, but also to eat more
apples. It can be seen as very patronising.”
- Wellbeing lead, UK retailer
The employer’s perspective
To sense check the findings of this research, a series of workshops were organised with leading
employers to learn from their experience in the challenges and opportunities from trying to
put some of these interventions into practice.

In the rest of this review, the challenges and facilitators extracted from the 107 studies in the
literature review have been aggregated, giving guidance on how the ten individual interventions
or a multicomponent intervention can be implemented in practice:
Employer View
“We found an interesting incentive was health kiosks. It’s very simple. Just a contraption that
measures blood pressure, body fat and your BMI. Very basic indicators. What was surprising
was the number of people who made changes after that. I had a lot of people say they looked
at it and thought, ‘Oh…”
Physical activity:
1) Unsupervised exercise
Employees are encouraged or provided resources to take part in unsupervised exercise at onsite
facilities, or designated walking routes.
Facilitators
» Reduce the barriers to participation
by recommending a type of activity
with low dedicated time requirements
(e.g. active commuting, increased step
counts);
» Gives the freedom to choose when and
how to engage in physical activity;
» Activity can be completed at a time
when is most convenient for the
employee.
Challenges
» Can be expensive to supply employees with
membership to sports facilities or provide
those facilities on site;
» Employees cite a range of barriers to
participating in unsupervised exercise,
including ‘no time’, ‘too tired’, ‘not accessible’,
and ‘no partner to exercise with’;
» Employees may lack the knowledge or
confidence to engage in unsupervised
exercise programmes;
» Increased risk of injury from unsupervised
sessions.
Overall evidence base: Moderate evidence of effectiveness
Evidence base for under-represented groups: No evidence

2) Workspace supervised exercise
A fitness professional delivered exercise class at the worksite.
Facilitators
» Classes offered during lunch breaks
and before or after work hours can
ensure that exercise time does not
encroach on work tasks;
» Exercise level and type can be tailored
to the needs of the workforce, including
health outcomes beyond physical
activity, such as yoga classes for stress
reduction or postural alignment classes
for back pain;
» Supervision ensures that all exercises
are performed safely and correctly;
» Supervision can help to motivate
employees and allow them to build their
confidence in performing exercises;
» A sense of accountability to class
supervisors may enhance participation
rates;
» Worksite classes may help to build
rapport between employees taking
part.
Challenges
» Exercises classes during working hours may
require alternative cover staff to be arranged;
» Workplaces must have suitable facilities to run
exercise classes/facilities (e.g. exercise space,
equipment, shower and changing facilities);
» Not easily scalable to reach employees across
distributed workforces;
» Supervised exercise classes may not result
in lasting changes to exercise levels after
termination of a programme;
» Requires a trained exercise professional to
organise and run sessions, in addition to
suitable health and safety policies;
» Low participations rates are likely, particularly
for high intensity exercise sessions;
» Compensation effects may result, such as a
reduction in physical activity outside of class
time;
» Intensive exercise classes may not be
appropriate for all employee groups, such as
those who are very inactive.
Overall evidence base: Strong evidence of effectiveness
Evidence base for under-represented groups: Strong evidence of effectiveness

3) Supervised exercise off workplace
A fitness professional delivered exercise class not at the worksite.
Facilitators
» Classes offered out of work hours can
ensure that exercise time does not
encroach on work tasks;
» High quality/fun classes (e.g. football,
rugby, dance) can boost participation
rates;
» Supervision ensures that all exercises
are performed safely and correctly;
» Participation rates are usually high for
offsite exercise classes;
» Supervision can help to motivate
employees and allow them to build their
confidence in performing exercise;
» A sense of accountability to class
supervisors may increase participation.
Challenges
» Supervised exercise classes may not result
in lasting changes after the termination of a
programme;
» Requires a trained exercise professional and
exercise facilities to organise and run sessions;
» May require significant time to set up and a
supportive infrastructure for delivery;
» Barriers to off-worksite class attendance
include time, transport and other priorities.
4) Group support
Organised group sessions where employees come together for health education, to monitor
progress, agree physical activity goals or identify challenges to change.
Facilitators
» Offers employees an opportunity
to voice and share their experiences
with workplace support for behaviour
change;
» Relatively low burden for delivering
staff;
» Group session may help to build
rapport between the employees taking
part;
» Relatively low attrition rates.
Challenges
» Group support sessions delivered during work
hours require that employees are granted time
away from work tasks;
» May require a suitable facilitator to organise
and run group sessions;
» Sessions may be available to a limited few only;
» Requires suitable numbers of willing employees
to participate in group sessions;
» Group based support may be more appealing
to types of employee. (Previous research has
found participation has been found to be low
among male employees);
» Employees may not wish for their health
behaviours to be discussed with fellow
colleagues.
Evidence base for under-represented groups: Moderate evidence of effectiveness
Evidence base for under-represented groups: Inconclusive

Overall evidence base: Insufficient evidence
5) Incentives
Providing employees with valued rewards for behaviour.
Facilitators
» Likely to work best as part of a multi-
component intervention, alongside
other behaviour change support such as
goal setting and action plans.
Challenges
» Incentives may not result in lasting changes to
behaviour after the direct incentive is taken
away;
» If using financial incentives, employers may
desire evidence of cost-effectiveness;
» Incentives need to be appropriate so that
they motivate physical activity for all, ensuring
that those who are already active are not
demotivated;
» May be perceived as coercive.
6) Individual coaching
Participants receive one-to-one coaching to increase physical activity.
Facilitators
» Facilitators can easily tailor content to
suit the unique needs of a workforce;
» Face-to-face education sessions may
be more effective if delivered as part
of a multi-component intervention,
with additional environmental and
organisation support for behaviour
change;
» A sense of accountability to session
facilitators can enhance participation
rates;
» Very high adherence rate when taking
place during working hours.
Challenges
» Individual coaching sessions delivered during
work hours will require that employees are
granted time away from work tasks;
» Not easily scalable to reach employees across
distributed workforces;
» May prove to be high cost depending on the
provider;
» Lack of management support can increase
attrition rates as employees cite ‘lack of time’
when missing meetings;
» Difficult to engage employees who do not
wish to take part.
Overall evidence base: Insufficient evidence

7) Activity prompts
Software, email or other messages encouraging breaks in extended sedentary time.
Facilitators
» Low cost;
» Software may be relatively easy to install
depending on existing IT support;
» Potentially scalable to reach large
numbers of employees;
» Message content can be modified to
suit the recipient;
» Can be easily turned off if required;
» Prompts can be set to momentarily
‘lock’ access for a given period of
minutes, essentially making the
employee leave their desk;
» Prompts likely to work best in
combination with environmental
support as part of a multicomponent
intervention (e.g. provision of active
desks, restructuring workplace layout);
» Witnessing other employees adhering
to active prompts can act as a visual
cue, encouraging others to follow suit;
» May provide welcome breaks from
stressful work.
Challenges
» Optimal frequency of prompts is unknown: too
infrequent may be ineffective, too frequent
may irritate employees;
» Not a relevant approach for workplaces in
which employees already spend a large
amount of time standing/walking;
» The effectiveness of activity prompts may
wear off over time due to habituation;
» Increased standing time may lead to
complaints of back pain or fatigue;
» May incur cost in licensing costs and
instalment depending on size of organisation;
» Extended time standing at work may lead
to compensation effects during out-of-work
hours (e.g. increased sitting in the evenings),
leading to no overall health benefit;
» Extended time spent standing may lead to
increased tiredness.
Employer View
“What we’re really clear on is there’s certain groups will be more prone to sedentary behaviour,
whereas warehouse workers don’t need to worry about the number of steps, whereas office
workers there’s a role where sedentary behaviour – its more from an occupational angle. So
when we talk about focus areas, where physical activity and a healthy body is more important,
actually their job means they’re sitting around all day.”
- Employee experience lead, UK supermarket
Employer View
“What about standing? In terms of our workforce, there’s a lot of time on the shop floor, but you
don’t move around much.”
Evidence base for under-represented groups: Inconclusive evidence

8) Active desks
Sit-stand desks / treadmill desks added to the working environment to encourage reductions in
sedentary time.
Facilitators
» To boost adherence, active desks
may need to be combined with other
support as part of a multicomponent
intervention;
» Providing training can facilitate uptake
and adherence among employees;
» Use may be higher in employees already
motivated to be physically active.
Challenges
» Expensive to install companywide;
» Not necessarily feasible to install or use at
scale in certain workplaces;
» Not a relevant approach for workplaces in
which employees already spend a large
amount of standing or walking;
» Increased standing time may lead to
complaints of back pain, fatigue or
musculoskeletal conditions;
» Extended time standing at work may lead
to compensation effects during out-of-work
hours (e.g. increased sitting in the evenings);
» May interfere with work tasks and be
unacceptable for some employees.
Employer View
“We have the active desks, but we don’t allow them to have it straight away. They have to have
training for that desk mechanism. They have to flag and then they can move up and down
on their desks. We didn’t want people having it, or it just went negative. There was a double
intervention. This years results was a great climb on last year – and we’ve just put activity desks
and just started with wobbling stools and all sorts of bits, workout spaces and activity desks,
chairs, apples – I can’t see balls being on the trade floor. They’ll get kicked at people.”
Employer View
“We tried standing desks, and that’s why it’s an interesting one – people just stand there. They
will stand for 20 hours. We found there were other issues with upper back issues and blood
flow.”

9) Written health education
Print-based written content that provides advice on how to achieve reductions in sitting time or
increases in physical activity such as posters or booklets.
Facilitators
» Low cost compared to other types of
intervention;
» Easily scalable to reach large numbers
of employees;
» Visually appealing content with images
may increase employee engagement;
» Utilising written materials such as
posters around the worksite, in canteens
and other high use areas, can assist in
engaging unmotivated employees;
» For those who do read, levels of
satisfaction and interest in content is
usually high;
» Employees discuss and share written
content with colleagues, encouraging
others to become more active;
» Employees tend to prefer delivery via
electronic mediums but are more likely
to read print-based materials.
Challenges
» Written materials may not be read, or read
only after a significant delay;
» Effectiveness may be limited to already
motivated employees;
» Numerous “booster” materials may be
required to support longer-term behaviour
change;
» Low engagement rates are likely if employees
are required to seek out and access written
materials;
» May be perceived as the employer offering
limited or low value support for behaviour
change;
» Provides no opportunities to discuss or
verify information or advice, allowing for
misinterpretation.
Employer View
“I was quite taken by – you were talking about people measuring themselves against 5 a day.
Whether you do it or not, you know where you stand. You’ve done two, you’ve done three.
When it comes to exercise, all of the jargon is hard to understand. Where – the perfect is 150,
but actually doing 30 mins is where you get an initial health saving. So there’s something about
helping people understand what to do. What should we be doing?”

10) Web-based interventions
Utilising online support such as websites, apps, and or emails to encourage behaviour change.
Facilitators
» Scalable solution with potential to reach
a distributed workforce;
» Easy to update content and meet the
changing needs of the employees;
» Delivery of an intervention via email can
ensure company-wide reach;
» Relatively simple and low cost;
» Internet delivered exercise
recommendations can lead to
significant improvements independent
of structured/non-structured delivery;
» Easily accessible information;
» Low commitment requirement likely to
improve outcome potential.
Challenges
» Content needs to be regularly reviewed and
updated to ensure it meets the needs of
employees;
» Costs may be prohibitive if employers
consider third party applications/solutions;
» Usage rates may decline over time;
» Access may be limited where employees do
not routinely have access to computers at
work.
Employer View
“Staircases are not the most exciting places, but if you put these posters, it makes it a bit fun,
and a bit more competitive – and it’s so simple in terms of this simple, effective thing to do.”

Multicomponent interventions
11) Offline only multicomponent interventions
Print-based written content that provides advice on how to achieve reductions in sitting time or
increases in physical activity such as posters or booklets.
Facilitators
» Defining clear goals of the
multicomponent intervention may assist
in selection of elements and assist in
measuring impact;
» Multicomponent approached provide the
opportunity for virtually all employees to
access some sort of intervention
Challenges
» Costs of multicomponent interventions may be
prohibitive;
» Difficult to assess effectiveness of individual
components as part of a multicomponent
strategy;
» To continually engage employees, employers
may have to continually adapt, add, remove, and
alter intervention types;
» Environmental changes to the workplace may be
too expensive and complex to organise;
12) Online and offline muliticomponent interventions
Utilising online support such as websites, apps, and or emails to encourage behaviour change.
Facilitators
» Scalable solution with potential to reach
a distributed workforce;
» Easy to update content and meet the
changing needs of the employees;
» Delivery of an intervention via email can
ensure company-wide reach;
» Relatively simple and low cost;
» Internet delivered exercise
recommendations can lead to
significant improvements independent
of structured/non-structured delivery;
» Easily accessible information;
» Low commitment requirement likely to
improve outcome potential.
Challenges
» Content needs to be regularly reviewed and
updated to ensure it meets the needs of
employees;
» Costs may be prohibitive if employers
consider third party applications/solutions;
» Usage rates may decline over time;
» Access may be limited where employees do
not routinely have access to computers at
work.
Overall evidence base: Weak evidence of effectiveness
Evidence base for under-represented groups: Weak evidence of effectiveness
Evidence base for under-represented groups: Strong evidence of effectiveness

Figure 9: PRISMA flow diagram of search strategy
Identification
Records identified through database searching (14/08/2017)
n = 3809
Cochrane Library = 105
Medline, Embase AMED, The King’s Fund and HD Data = 3704
ScreeningEligiblityIncluded
Records after
duplicates removed
(n = 2695)
Records screened
(n = 2695)
Records excluded
(n = 2545)
Full-text articles assessed for
eligibility
(n = 148)
Studies included in systematic
review
(n = 107)
Full-text articles excluded,
with reasons (n = 41)
Duplicate Datasets (n = 14)
Full text unavailable /
Conference abstract (n = 3)
Outcome data does not
meet inclusion criteria (n =
15)
Design did not meet
inclusion criteria (n = 9)

To summarise the findings from all studies
included in this review, conclusions were drawn on
the effectiveness of each intervention based on
the criteria below:
An intervention is judged as “Association +” if
there is a significant difference in physical activity
or sedentary behaviour between intervention
and control groups at follow-up, favouring the
intervention.
An intervention is judged as “Association -” if
there is an improvement in physical activity or a
reduction in sedentary behaviour from baseline
in the intervention group, but no significant
difference in this change between intervention
and control group. Also judged as “Association
–” are studies that showed no improvement
from baseline in the intervention group, or if the
intervention group significantly reduced their
physical activity or increased their sedentary
behaviour relative to the control group over the
follow-up period.
Where multiple physical activity or sedentary
behaviour outcomes are presented for a single
intervention, Nuffield Health judge effectiveness
on the following prioritisation:
» the primary physical activity/sedentary
behaviour outcome measure are preferentially
selected, as specified by the author;
» Where the primary outcome is not specified
or is not a physical activity/sedentary
behaviour outcome measure, Nuffield Health
preferentially select objective measures of
physical activity/sedentary behaviour over
self-report measures. Where multiple objective
measures are present, the indicator that best
aligns to the primary aims of the study are
chosen;
» Where data for multiple follow-up points are
reported, Nuffield Health preferentially select
the latest available, in order to judge the
enduring effectiveness of an intervention.
Next, the overall strength of evidence for
different categories of physical activity/sedentary
behaviour intervention is summarised. For this
process, Nuffield Health follow the method
adopted by van Stralen et al., (2009)
(see box 3 over).
In detail, Nuffield Health conclude that the
evidence supporting a category of intervention
is STRONG if more than two-thirds of relevant
studies were identified as “Association +”.
Data summary
Authors SA and AI developed data extraction forms to identify and pull relevant information from
eligible studies to summarise in this review. This included information on study aims, setting,
location, participants, type of intervention and comparison group, primary and secondary outcome
measures, indicators of socio-economic disadvantage, main findings and Opportunities and
Challenges to conducting the intervention.
One author each (SA, AI, BK, JD, MC) extracted data from all eligible studies with a 5% subset
(e.g. N = 6 papers) first checked by all authors at the start of this process to ensure accuracy and
standardisation, and to resolve queries and discrepancies prior data extraction on all remaining full
texts.
Data extraction

It is concluded that evidence to support a
intervention is MODERATE if between half and
two-thirds of relevant studies are “Association +”.
If there are only two papers, the evidence base
is classified moderate if at least one (50%) is
effective.
Lastly, if less than half of relevant studies are
“Association +”, the strength of evidence is
classified for the intervention as WEAK.
If there are only two studies, they are
classified as weak if neither is effective.
Where only one study is available
for a intervention, the evidence-base is
considered inconclusive.
Next, Nuffield Health identified studies that
explored physical activity/sedentary behaviour
interventions in under-represented groups. For
this, papers were located that either targeted an
socio-economically disadvantaged group directly,
or studies that present analyses comparing the
effect of an intervention according to the
Finally, Nuffield Health extracted and summarised the information from individual studies on challenges
and opportunities to implementing physical activity and sedentary behaviour interventions in the
workplace. This included challenges and opportunities for both employers and employees.
Box 3: criteria for judging the strength of the
evidence base
Strong
66% (two thirds) of studies are
effective
Moderate
66% (two thirds) of studies are
effective
Weak
Between 50-66% are effective or
there is just one study and it is
judged as effective

Appendices:
Appendix A: Methodology
Screening
The database searches located 3809 studies.
Two authors (Sophie Attwood (SA), Aidan Innes
(AI)) independently reviewed all titles and
abstracts against inclusion criteria, removing
duplicates and excluding ineligible studies.
Full text copies of remaining studies (N = 148)
were next located. Three authors (SA, AI and
Ben Kelly (BK)) reviewed this shortlist against
inclusion criteria, with each full text read and
assessed by at least two authors.
Nuffield Health retained studies that both
authors considered met all inclusion criteria.
Where two authors disagreed on eligibility
status, a final decision was made via group
discussions with author BK.
A summary of the search process is available in
figure 9 below. The review included a final total
of 107 eligible studies.
To compile the evidence base behind this
report, Nuffield Health systematically searched
electronic databases (Medline, Embase, AMED,
The Cochrane Library, The King's Fund and
DH-Data) for eligible primary studies from
their inception dates to August 2017.
Eligibility is based on six primary
inclusion criteria:
» Setting: Studies that recruit participants
into a physical activity/sedentary
behaviour intervention conducted in a
workplace setting;
» Intervention: Studies that include
an intervention involving a physical
activity or sedentary behaviour change
component, either alone or as part of a
multi-factorial program (e.g. includes a
focus on diet, activity, wellbeing etc.).
Interventions that focus on physical
rehabilitation or symptom management/
treatment (e.g. physiotherapy for back
pain) are excluded;
» Outcome: Studies that report a post-
intervention physical activity, physical
fitness or sedentary behaviour outcome
measure;
» Population: Studies that recruit adult
employees only ( 16 years);
» Study Design: Studies that report a
post-intervention comparison between
interventions versus control group(s). This
includes controlled trials, randomised
controlled trials, cluster randomised
controlled trials and quasi-experimental
studies with concurrent control;
» Date: For relevance, Nuffield Health
subsequently limited its search to recent
studies only, published within the last 15
years (e.g. on or after 2002).

Appendix B: Overview of the strength of the evidence for
categories of workplace-based physical activity intervention
Intervention Brief Description ¶
Total
number
of studies
*Strength
of evidence
Sedentary Behaviour
Activity prompts Software, email or other
messages encouraging
breaks in extended
sedentary time
Judice et al 2015, Taylor
et al 2016
Swatz et al 2015, Urda
et al 2016
4 Moderate (50% +)
Active desks Sit-stand desks / treadmill
desks added to the working
environment to encourage
reductions in sedentary time
Alkhajah et al 2012, Shuna
et al 2014, Dutta et al
2014, Chau et al 2014,
Graves et al 2015, Miyachi
et al 2015, MacEwan et
al 2017
Chau et al, 2015,
Donath et al 2015
9 Strong (78% +)
Physical Activity
Unsupervised
exercise including
walking
Employees are encouraged
or provided resources to
take part in unsupervised
exercise at onsite facilities, or
designated walking routes
Hewitt et al 2008, Yuan et
al 2008, Gilson et al 2009
Murphy et al
2006, Puig-Ribera
et al 2008, Brown et
al 2014
6 Moderate (50% +)
Worksite supervised
exercise classes
A fitness professional
delivered exercise class at
the worksite
2012, Sertel et al 2016,
Korshoj et al 2016, Dalager
et al 2016, Matsugaki et al
2017, Con Thiele et al 2017
Pedersen et al 2009,
Ribeiro et al 2014
8 Strong (75% +)
Supervised exercise
classes off worksite
A fitness professional
delivered exercise class not
at the worksite
Barene et al 2013 Brand et al 2005
2
Moderate (50% +,
only two papers)
Group support Organised group sessions
where employees come
together for health
education, to monitor
progress, agree physical
activity goals or identify
Challenges to change
Barham et al 2010, Purath
et al 2004 Tan et al, 2016
3
STRONG (100% +,
only 3 studies)
Incentives Providing employees with
valued rewards for behaviour
Dallat et al 2013
1
Inconclusive
(1 study only)
Individual Coaching Participants receive one-to-
one coaching to increase
physical activity
Schopp et al 2017
1
Inconclusive
(1 study only)

Intervention Brief Description ¶
Total
number
of studies
*Strength
of evidence
Sedentary Behaviour and/or Physical Activity
Written health
education
Print-based written content
that provides on how to
achieve reductions in sitting
time or increases in physical
activity such as posters or
booklets
Mutrie et al 2007 Griffin-Blake et al
2006, Plotnikoff et al
2007, Eves et al
2012
4 Weak (25% +)
Web based
interventions
Utilising online support
such as websites, apps,
and or emails to encourage
behaviour change
Plotnikoff et al 2005,
Sternfield et al 2009,
Touger-Decker et al 2010,
Irvine et al 2011, Deitz et
al 2014, Blake et al 2015,
Lippke et al 2015, Puig-
Ribera et al 2015, Poirier
et al 2016, De Cocker et
al 2016
Marshall et al
2003, Cook et al 2007,
Spittaels et al 2007,
Slootmaker et al 2009,
Bennett et al 2011,
Thorndike et al 2012,
Robroek et al 2012,
Suggs et al
2013
18 Moderate (56% +)
Multicomponent
(Online Offline)
interventions
Utilising multiple techniques
to target individual level
and or environmental level
and or organisational level
factors or two or more
interventions comprising
both online and offline
modalities, to encourage
behaviour change
Naito et al 2008, Musto et
al 2010, Morgan et al 2011,
Hughes et al 2011, Evans
et al 2012, Andersen et
al 2013, Carr et al 2013,
Gazararian et al 2013,
Neuhaus et al 2014, Mansi
et al 2015, Carr et al 2016,
Shefieinia et al 2016,
Smith-McClallen et al
2016, Arrogi et al 2017
Pressler et al 2010,
De Cocker et al 2010,
Aittasalo et al 2012,
Reijonsaari et al 2012,
Low et al 2015
19 Strong (74% +)
Multicomponent
(Offline Only)
interventions
Utilising multiple techniques
to target individual level
and or environmental level
and or organisational level
factors or two or more
interventions comprising
of offline modalities only,
to encourage behaviour
change
Atlanti et al 2006,
Prochaska et al 2008,
Mackinnon et al 2010,
Christensen et al 2011,
Prestwich et al 2012,
Verweij et al 2012, Healhy
et al 2013, Graham et
al 2013, Coffeng et al
2014, Sorensen et al
2015, Tucker et al 2016,
Brackenridge et al 2016,
Belicha et al 2016, Lin et al
2017, Danquah et al 2017
Aittasalo et al 2004,
Aldana et al 2005,
Racette et al
2009, French et al
2010, Siegal et al
2010, McEachan et
al 2011, Strijk et al
2012, Edries et al
2013, Parry et al 2013,
Ferraro et al 2013,
Karlqvist et al 2013,
Kramer et al 2015,
Anthony et al 2015,
Miller et al 2015,
Lacalle et al 2016,
Wilson et al 2016,
Viester et al 2017
32 Weak (47% +)

Appendix C: Summary of studies for under-represented
employee groups
Study Design Location
Underserved
Group
Intervention
Outcome measure
findings
Association
+/-
Physical Activity
Barene et al,
2013
cluster RCT Norway GENDER:
107 female
healthcare
employees
12-week off worksite supervised
exercise classes, performed out-of
work hours, including supervised
soccer and zumba classes 2-3
times per week. Control condition
was no intervention.
Significantly greater
improvements in objectively
measured fitness (VO2
peak) were found in
the intervention group
compared to the control
group over the follow-up
period
Association +
Matsugaki
et al, 2017
RCT Japan GENDER:
30 female shift
working nurses
12-weeks of twice weekly worksite
supervised exercise classes
focussing on resistance and
aerobic training. The control
condition received written
guidance on resistance and
aerobic exercise training only.
No significant difference
between intervention and
control group in change in
maximal oxygen uptake
(VO2 max) over the
follow-up period.
Association -
Sertel et al,
2016
RCT Turkey GENDER:
68 female
factory workers
8-week worksite supervised group
exercise classes.
Group 1 attended
classes targeting
strength training.
Group 2 attended
classes targeting
endurance training.
The control condition received
no intervention.
improvements in objectively
measured maximal oxygen
uptake (VO2 max) were
found in the intervention
groups 1 and 2 compared
to the control group over
the follow-up period.
Association +
von Thiele
et al, 2017
cluster RCT Sweden GENDER:
177 female
healthcare
employees
12-month intervention. Group 1
were assigned to
mandatory worksite-based
exercise during
work hours. Group
2 were allocated
reduction work
hours in order to
perform exercise.
The control
condition received
no intervention.
improvements in
self-reported physical
activity (author designed
questionnaire assessing
frequency and type of
physical activity) were found
in intervention group 1
compared to group 2 and
the control group over the
follow-up
period.
Association +
Sedentary Behaviour and/or Physical Activity
Christensen
et al, 2011
cluster RCT Denmark GENDER:
98 overweight,
female
healthcare
employees
12-month offline multicomponent
intervention targeting multiple
health behaviours. The focus was
on increasing leisure time physical
activity and muscle strengthening
exercises to facilitate weight
loss. The control group received
monthly face-to-face education
sessions.
The authors report a
significant difference in
objectively measured
aerobic fitness between the
intervention and reference
groups at 3 months.
Association +
Edries et al,
2013
RCT South Africa OCCUPATION:
80 factory
workers
6-week offline multicomponent
intervention targeting employee
wellness. Approaches included
group education sessions, goal
setting and cognitive behavioural
therapy, written health education
and weekly supervised aerobic
exercise classes. The control
condition received one health
promotion talk and various
educational pamphlets.
control group in change
in self-reported physical
activity (Stamford Exercise
Behaviour Scale; SEBS) over
the follow-up
period.
Association -

French et
al, 2010
RCT USA OCCUPATION:
2225 bus
garage
employees
intervention targeting multiple
health behaviours. Intervention
approaches we selected by
participations, and included
amongst them; purchasing fitness
equipment, fitness programme,
walking challenges, supervised
exercise classes, health education
event and peer monitoring
of behaviour change. Control
condition was no intervention.
control group in change
in self-reported physical
activity (Godin Leisure
Time Physical Activity
Questionnaire; GLTPA) over
the follow-up period
Association -
Lippke et al,
2015
RCT Germany OCCUPATION:
384 manual shift
workers
4-week web based support.
Content of materials was
individually matched to theory
based stages of behaviour change
(non-intenders, intenders, and
actors). Control condition received
non-matched written general
health education, delivered online.
The stag-matched
intervention group
outperformed the active
control condition for
selfreported
physical activity.
Association +
Low et al,
2015
RCT USA GENDER:
57 female
healthcare
employees
6-month online offline
multicomponent intervention
targeting multiple health
behaviours. Approaches included
motivational counselling via email,
organised walks and access to
fitness classes and on-site facilities.
Control condition received
organised walks and access to
fitness classes and on-site facilities
only.
control group in terms of
change in self-reported
physical activity (author
designed questionnaire
assessing exercise days per
week, minutes per session,
and intensity [no, leisurely,
moderate, or vigorous
exercise) over the follow-up
period.
Association -
Mansi et al,
2015
RCT New Zealand OCCUPATION:
53 factory
workers: 53
factory workers
12-week online offline
multicomponent intervention
targeting walking. Approaches
included pedometer, plus an
emailed materials based on
self-regulation theory. Control
condition received the pedometer
plus generic (e.g. non-theory-
based) written materials.
The authors report three
relevant outcome measures.
The intervention group
showed a significantly
greater improvement in
objectively measured step
counts (Yamax Digi-walker
SW-200) and self-reported
physical activity (IPAQ) than
follow-up period. There was
no significant difference
in objectively measured
functional exercise capacity
(6-minute walk test)
control group at follow-up.
Association +
Morgan et
al, 2011
RCT Australia OCCUPATION:
110 factory
workers
multicomponent intervention.
Approaches involved face-to-face
education sessions focussing
on weight loss, online materials,
handbook and a financial
incentive. The control condition
received no intervention.
improvements in self-
reported physical activity
(GLTPA, plus an author
designed questionnaire
assessing workday physical
activity and physical activity
habits) were found in the
intervention compared to
follow-up period.
Association +
Musto et al,
2010
quasi-
experimental
study
USA GENDER:
77 female
university
employees
multicomponent intervention.
Approaches included a pedometer
plus step log and written materials
as well as email support. Control
group consisted of participants
who had not increased their
physical activity over the follow-up
period.
improvements in
objectively measured step
count (pedometer) and self-
(Stanford Usual Activity
Questionnaire; SUAQ) were
period.
Association +

Plotnikoff et
al, 2007
RCT Canada GENDER:
507 female
employees
in a large
organization
12-month written education
intervention, including five printed
booklets containing information
matched to participant’s stage-of-
change (Trans theoretical Model).
The control condition received
generic written health education
materials.
No significant differences
between intervention
groups and control group
in change in self-reported
physical activity (GLTPA)
over the follow-up period.
Association -
Purath et al,
2004
cluster RCT USA GENDER:
271 female
university
employees
6-week counselling based
intervention. Control condition
received screening and brief
intervention only.
(Paffenbarger Physical
Activity; PPAQ) were
period.
Association +
Ribeiro et al,
2014
RCT Brazil GENDER:
195 female
healthcare
employees
12-week offline multicomponent
intervention. Three different
interventions were trialled.
Group 1 received a pedometer
plus individual face-to-face
counselling and written materials.
Group 2 received a pedometer
plus 8 group-based face-to-face
counselling sessions. Group 3
participated in twice-weekly
supervised aerobic exercise
training. Control condition three
brief counselling sessions plus
written health education materials.
groups and control group
in change in objectively
measured physical
activity (step counts) at
final follow-up period (6-
months).
Association -
Slootmaker
et al, 2009
RCT Netherlands EDUCATION:
102 office based
employees,
analysis
comparing
employee
with different
education
levels (higher
vocational
education/
university
degree versus
other)l
12-week web-based intervention
Approaches included a pedometer
plus web-based tailored written
materials. Control condition
received generic written health
education materials
For the whole sample,
there were no significant
differences between
intervention groups
and control group in
change in self-reported
physical activity (Activity
Questionnaire for
Adolescents and Adults;
AQuAA) or in change in
maximal oxygen uptake
(VO2 max) over the
follow-up period. Authors
conducted further analysis
comparing differences
in effect between higher
versus lower educated
participants. There was
no significant differential
intervention effect by
education level at final
follow-up (8 months).
Association -
Tan et al,
2016
Cluster RCT Singapore GENDER:
598 female
office based
employees
Three face-to-face group
health education workshops,
with content based on Social
Cognitive theory. Main focus was
building self-efficacy, goal-setting
and problem-solving. Control
condition received generic health
education written materials.
(EPIC Norfolk Physical
Activity Questionnaire 2;
EPAQ-2) were found in the
intervention compared to
follow-up period.
Association +
Viester et al,
2017
RCT Netherlands OCCUPATION:
327
construction
workers
6-month Multicomponent
intervention. Approaches included
face-to-face and telephone health
coaching sessions during work
hours, plus written education
materials and personalized
feedback. Control condition
received usual care.
group and control group
in change in self-reported
physical activity (Health
Enhancing Physical Activity
Questionnaire (SQUASH)”
and author developed
questionnaire assessing
meeting physical activity
guidelines) at final follow-up
(12 months)
Association -

Wilson et al,
2016
Quasi-
experimental
study
USA OCCUPATION:
916 overweight
transport
maintenance
employees
intervention included written
education materials, peer-led
face to face health coaching
sessions and changes to the work
environment to promote physical
activity. Control condition received
no intervention.
There was a decrease
in self-reported walking
(IPAQ) in both intervention
and control conditions
over the follow-up period.
reduction in self-reported
sitting time (IPAQ) were
period.
Association -
Shafieinia et
al, 2016
Quasi-
experimental
study
Shafieinia et
al, 2016
Iran GENDER: 95
female office
workers
12 week Online Offline
Multicomponent intervention
including: Email education and
group sessions. Control condition
received no intervention.
A significant increase in
IPAQ reported physical
activity was found in
the intervention group
group.
Association +
Urda et al.
2016
RCT USA GENDER:
44 Female
university staff
Intervention: week 1, maintain
normal behaviour; week 2, receive
hourly prompts on their computer
during work hours to stand up.
Control group repeated week
1 during week 2 as opposed to
undergoing an intervention
Thigh-worn activity tracker
reported no significant
change within groups
or between groups for
sitting time, or sit-to-stand
transitions.
Association -

Aittasalo, M. et al., 2012. Promoting walking
among office employees - evaluation of a
randomized controlled intervention with
pedometers and e-mail messages. BMC public
health, 12(1), p.403.
Aittasalo, M., Miilunpalo, S. Suni, J., 2004. The
effectiveness of physical activity counseling in
a work-site setting A randomized , controlled
trial. Patient Education and Counselling, 55(2),
pp.193–202.
Aldana, S.G. et al., 2005. The effects of a
worksite chronic disease prevention program.
Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, 47(6), pp.558–564.
Alkhajah, T.A. et al., 2012. Sit–stand
workstations: a pilot intervention to reduce
office sitting time. American journal of
preventive medicine, 43(3), pp.298–303.
Anthony, D., Canada, R.N., et al., 2015.
Reducing Health Risk Factors in Workplaces
of Low and Middle-Income Countries. Public
Health Nursing, 32(5), pp.478–487.
Anthony, D., Dyson, P.A., et al., 2015. Reducing
Health Risk Factors in Workplaces of Low
and Middle-Income Countries. Public Health
Nursing, 32(5), pp.478–487.
Arrogi, A. et al., 2017. Short- and long-term
effectiveness of a supportive physical activity
counseling intervention at the workplace. BMC
Public Health, 17(1), p.52. Available at: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3965-1.
Atlantis, E. et al., 2006. Worksite intervention
effects on physical health: a randomized
controlled trial. Health Promotion International,
21(3), pp.191–200.
Barene, S. et al., 2013. Do soccer and Zumba
exercise improve fitness and indicators of
health among female hospital employees ? A
12-week RCT. Scandinavian journal of medicine
science in sports, 24(6), pp.990–999.
Barham, K. et al., 2011. Diabetes Prevention
and Control in the Workplace : A Pilot Project
for County Employees. Journal of Public Health
Management and Practice, 17(3), pp.233–241.
Bellicha, A. et al., 2016. A multistage controlled
intervention to increase stair climbing at
work : effectiveness and process evaluation.
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition
and Physical Activity, 13(1), p.47. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12966-016-0371-0.
Bennett, J. et al., 2016. A Web-Based Approach
to Address Cardiovascular Risks in Managers
NIH Public Access. International Journal of
Behavioral Nutrition and Physical ACtivity,
13(1), p.47.
Blake, H. et al., 2015. Active8 ! Technology-
Based Intervention to Promote Physical Activity
in Hospital Employees. American journal of
health promotion : AJHP, 31(2), pp.109–118.
Brakenridge, C.L. et al., 2016. Evaluating
the effectiveness of organisational-level
strategies with or without an activity tracker to
reduce office workers’ sitting time: a cluster-
randomised trial. The international journal of
behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 13(1),
p.115.
Brand, R. et al., 2005. Effects of a physical
exercise intervention on employees ’
perceptions of quality of life : a randomized
controlled trial. Sozial-und Praventivmedizin,
51(1), pp.14–23.
Brown, D.K. et al., 2014. Walks4Work :
Assessing the role of the natural environment
in a workplace physical activity intervention.
Scandinavian journal of work, environment
healthScandinavian journal of work,
environment health, pp.390–399.
Carr, L.J. et al., 2013. Multicomponent
intervention to reduce daily sedentary time : a
randomised controlled trial. BMJ open, 3(10),
p.e003261.
Carr, L.J. et al., 2016. Total worker health
intervention increases Activity of Sedentary
Workers. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 50(1), pp.9–17. Available at: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.06.022.
Chau, J.Y. et al., 2016. More standing and
just as productive : Effects of a sit-stand desk
intervention on call center workers ’ sitting
, standing , and productivity at work in the
Opt to Stand pilot study. Preventive medicine
reports, 3, pp.68–74. Available at: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2015.12.003.
Chau, J.Y. et al., 2014. The effectiveness of
sit-stand workstations for changing office
workers ’ sitting time : results from the Stand
@ Work randomized controlled trial pilot.
and Physical Activity, 11(1), p.127.
Christensen, J.R. et al., 2011. Diet , physical
exercise and cognitive behavioral training as
a combined workplace based intervention
to reduce body weight and increase physical
capacity in health care workers - a randomized
controlled trial. BMC public health, 11(1), p.671.
De Cocker, K. et al., 2016. The Effectiveness of a
Web-Based Computer-Tailored Intervention on
Workplace Sitting: A Randomized Controlled
Trial. Journal of medical Internet research,
18(5), p.e96.
De Cocker, K.A., De Bourdeaudhuij, I.M.
Cardon, G.M., 2009. The effect of a
multi-strategy workplace physical activity
intervention promoting pedometer use and
step count increase. Health education research,
25(4), pp.608–619.
Coffeng, J.K., Boot, R.L. Duijts, S.F.A.,
2014. Effectiveness of a Worksite Social
Physical Environment Intervention on Need for
Recovery , Physical Activity and Relaxation ;
Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial. PloS
one, 9(12), p.e114860.
Cook, R.F. et al., 2007. A Field Test of a
Web-Based Workplace Health Promotion
Program to Improve Dietary Practices ,
Reduce Stress , and Increase Physical Activity :
Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of
Medical Internet Research, 9(2).
Dalager, T. et al., 2016. Implementing intelligent
physical exercise training at the workplace:
health effects among office workers-a
randomized controlled trial. European journal
of applied physiology, 116(7), pp.1433–1442.
Dallat, M.A.T. et al., 2013. A lesson in business :
cost-effectiveness analysis of a novel financial
incentive intervention for increasing physical
activity in the workplace. BMC public health,
13(1), p.953.
Danquah, I.H. et al., 2017. Take a Stand !–
a multi-component intervention aimed at
reducing sitting time among office workers – a
cluster randomized trial. International journal of
epidemiology, 46(1), pp.128–140.
Deitz, D. et al., 2014. Heart healthy online:
an innovative approach to risk reduction in
the workplace. Journal of occupational and
environmental medicine/American College of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
56(5), p.547.
Donath, L. et al., 2015. Repetitive Daily
Point of Choice Prompts and Occupational
Sit-Stand Transfers , Concentration and
Neuromuscular ... Repetitive Daily Point of
Choice Prompts and Occupational Sit-Stand
Transfers , Concentration and Neuromuscular
Performance in Office Worke. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 12(4), pp.4340–4353.
Dutta, N. et al., 2014. Using Sit-Stand
Workstations to Decrease Sedentary Time
in Office Workers : A Randomized Crossover
Trial. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 11(7), pp.6653–
6665.
Edries, N., Jelsma, J. Maart, S., 2013. The
impact of an employee wellness programme
in clothing / textile manufacturing companies :
a randomised controlled trial. BMC public
health, 13(1), p.25.
Evans, R.E. et al., 2012. Point-of-Choice Prompts
to Reduce Sitting Time at Work. AMEPRE,
43(3), pp.293–297. Available at: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.010.
Eves, F.F. et al., 2012. A multi-component
stair climbing promotional campaign
targeting calorific expenditure for worksites ;
a quasi-experimental study testing effects on
behaviour , attitude and intention. BMC public
health, 12(1), p.423.
Ferraro, L. et al., 2013. Workplace-Based
Participatory Approach to Weight Loss
for correctional employees. Journal of
occupational and environmental medicine,
55(2), pp.147–155.
French, S.A. et al., 2010. Worksite environment
intervention to prevent obesity among
metropolitan transit workers. Preventive
Medicine,50(4),pp.180–185.Availableat:http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.01.002.
Gazmararian, J.A. et al., 2013. A Randomized
Prospective Trial of a Worksite Intervention
Program to Increase Physical Activity. American
Journal of Health Promotion, 28(1), pp.32–40.
Gilson, N.D. et al., 2009. Do walking strategies
to increase physical activity reduce reported
sitting in workplaces : a randomized control
trial. International Journal of Behavioral
Nutrition and Physical Activity, 6(1), p.43.
Graham, D.J. et al., 2013. Environmental
modifications and 2-year measured and self-
Appendix D: Full list of 107 papers used in review

reported stair-use: a worksite randomized
trial. The journal of primary prevention, 34(6),
pp.413–422.
Gram, B. et al., 2012. Effect of individualized
worksite exercise training on aerobic capacity
and muscle strength among construction
workers—a randomized controlled
intervention study. Scandinavian journal of
work, environment health, pp.467–475.
Graves, L.E.F. et al., 2015. Evaluation of
sit-stand workstations in an office setting :
a randomised controlled trial. BMC Public
Health, 15(1), p.1145. Available at: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1186/s12889-015-2469-8.
Griffin-blake, C.S. Dejoy, D.M., 2006.
Evaluation of social-cognitive versus stage-
matched , Self-help Physical Activity
Interventions at the Workplace. American
Journal of Health Promotion, 20(3), pp.200–
209.
Healy, G.N., Fjeldsoe, B.S. Dunstan, D.W.,
2015. Reducing sitting time in office workers :
Short- term efficacy of a multicomponent
intervention. Preventive Medicine, 57(1),
pp.43–48. Available at: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.04.004.
Hewitt, J.A. et al., 2008. Journal of
Occupational Medicine The effects of a
graduated aerobic exercise programme on
cardiovascular disease risk factors in the
NHS workplace : a randomised controlled
trial. Journal of Occupational Medicine and
Toxicology, 3(1), p.7.
Hughes, S.L. et al., 2015. Comparison of Two
Health-Promotion Programs for Older Workers.
American journal of public health, 101(5),
pp.883–890.
Irvine, A.B. et al., 2011. Get Moving : A
Web Site That Increases Physical Activity of
Sedentary Employees. American Journal of
Health Promotion, 25(3), pp.199–207.
Júdice, P.B. et al., 2015. Randomized controlled
pilot of an intervention to reduce and break-up
overweight / obese adults ’ overall sitting-time.
Trials, 16(1), p.490. Available at: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1186/s13063-015-1015-4.
Karlqvist, L. Gard, G., 2013. Health-
promoting educational interventions : A
one-year follow-up study. Scandinavian Journal
of Public Health, 41(1), pp.32–42.
Korshøj, M. et al., 2012. Cardiorespiratory
fitness , cardiovascular workload and risk
factors among cleaners ; a cluster randomized
worksite intervention. BMC public health, 12(1),
p.645.
Kramer, M. et al., 2015. Improving employee
health: evaluation of a worksite lifestyle
change program to decrease risk factors for
diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Journal
of occupational and environmental medicine/
American College of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 57(3), p.284.
Lacaille, L.J. et al., 2016. Go !: results from
a quasi-experimental obesity prevention
trial with hospital employees. BMC Public
Health, 16(1), p.171. Available at: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1186/s12889-016-2828-0.
Lin, Y.-P. et al., 2017. Short-Term Efficacy of a
“Sit Less, Walk More” Workplace Intervention
on Improving Cardiometabolic Health and
Work Productivity in Office Workers. Journal
of occupational and environmental medicine,
59(3), pp.327–334.
Lippke, S., Fleig, L. Wiedemann, A.U., 2015. A
Computerized Lifestyle Application to Promote
Multiple Health Behaviors at the Workplace :
Testing Its Behavioral and ... A Computerized
Lifestyle Application to Promote Multiple
Health Behaviors at the Workplace : Testing Its
Behavioral and Psychologic. Journal of medical
Internet research, 17(10).
Louis, A.L. et al., 2013. Cardiovascular Health
Effects of Internet- Based Encouragements to
Do Daily Workplace Stair-Walks : Randomized
... Cardiovascular Health Effects of Internet-
Based Encouragements to Do Daily Workplace
Stair-Walks : Randomized Controlled Trial.
Journal of medical Internet research.
Low, V., Gebhart, B. Reich, C., 2015.
Effects of a Worksite Program to Improve
the Cardiovascular Health of Female Health
Care Workers. Journal of Cardiopulmonary
Rehabilitation and Prevention, 35(5), pp.342–
347.
MacEwen, B.T. et al., 2017. Sit-Stand Desks
To Reduce Workplace Sitting Time In
Office Workers with Abdominal Obesity:
A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of
physical activity health, pp.1–18.
Mackinnon, D.P. et al., 2010. Long-term Effects
of a Worksite Health promotion program
for firefighter. American journal of health
behaviors, 34(6), pp.695–706.
Mansi, S. et al., 2015. Investigating the effect of
a 3-month workplace-based pedometer-driven
walking programme on health-related quality
of life in meat processing workers : a feasibility
study within a randomized controlled trial. ???,
pp.1–12. Available at: ???
Marshall, A.L. et al., 2003. Print Versus Website
Physical Activity Programs. American journal of
Matsugaki, R. et al., 2017. Effectiveness of
workplace exercise supervised by a physical
therapist among nurses conducting shift
work: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of
occupational health, 59(4), pp.327–335.
Mceachan, R.R.C. et al., 2011. Testing a
workplace physical activity intervention :
a cluster randomized controlled trial.
and Physical Activity, 8(1), p.29.
Miller, C.K. et al., 2015. A translational
worksite diabetes prevention trial improves
psychosocial status , dietary intake , and step
counts among employees with prediabetes : A
randomized controlled trial. PMEDR, 2, pp.118–
126. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
pmedr.2015.02.003.
Miyachi, M. et al., 2015. Installation of a
stationary high desk in the workplace : effect of
a 6-week intervention on physical activity. BMC
public health, 15(1), p.368.
Morgan, P.J. et al., 2011. Ef fi cacy of a
workplace-based weight loss program for
overweight male shift workers : The Workplace
POWER ( Preventing Obesity Without Eating
like a Rabbit ) randomized controlled trial
☆. Preventive Medicine, 52(5), pp.317–325.
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ypmed.2011.01.031.
Murphy, M.H. et al., 2006. The effect of
a worksite based walking programme on
cardiovascular risk in previously sedentary civil
servants. BMC public health, 6(1), p.136.
Musto, A. et al., 2010. The Effects of an
Incremental Approach to 10 , 000 Steps /
Day on Metabolic Syndrome Components in
Sedentary Overweight Women. Journal of
physical activity health, 7(6), pp.737–745.
Mutrie, N. et al., 2002. “Walk in to Work Out”:
a randomised controlled trial of a self help
intervention to promote active commuting.
Journal of Epidemiology Community Health,
56(6), pp.407–412.
Naito, M. et al., 2008. Effect of a 4-year
workplace-based physical activity intervention
program on the blood lipid profiles of
participating employees : The high-risk
and population strategy for occupational
health promotion ( HIPOP-OHP ) study.
Atherosclerosis, 197(2), pp.784–790.
Neuhaus, M. et al., 2014. Workplace Sitting
and Height-Adjustable Workstations.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
46(1), pp.30–40. Available at: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.09.009.
Parry, S. et al., 2013. Participatory Workplace
Interventions Can Reduce Sedentary Time for
Office Workers — A Randomised Controlled
Trial. PloS one, 8(11), p.e78957.
Pedersen, M.T. et al., 2009. The Effect of
Worksite Physical Activity Intervention on
Physical Capacity , Health , and Productivity :
A 1-Year Randomized. Journal of occupational
and environmental medicine, 51(7), pp.789–
770.
Plotnikoff, R.C. et al., 2005. Efficacy of an
E-mail intervention for the promotion of
physical activity and nutrition behavior in the
workplace context. American Journal of Health
Promotion, 19(6), pp.422–429.
Plotnikoff, R.C. et al., 2007. The efficacy of
stage-matched and standard public health
materials for promoting physical activity in the
workplace: the Physical Activity Workplace
Study (PAWS). American Journal of Health
Promotion, 21(6), pp.501–509.
Poirier, J. et al., 2016. Effectiveness of an
Activity Tracker- and Internet-Based Adaptive
Walking Program for Adults : A Randomized
Controlled ... Effectiveness of an Activity
Tracker- and Internet-Based Adaptive Walking
Program for Adults : A Randomized Controlled
Trial. Journal of medical Internet research,
18(2).
Pressler, A. et al., 2010. An internet-delivered
exercise intervention for workplace health
promotioninoverweightsedentaryemployees :
A randomized trial. Preventive Medicine,
51(3-4), pp.234–239. Available at: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.07.008.

Prestwich, A. et al., 2012. Randomized
Controlled Trial of Collaborative
Implementation Intentions Targeting
Working Adults ’ Physical Activity. Health
psychology : official journal of the Division of
Health Psychology, American Psychological
Association, 31(4), pp.486–495.
Prochaska, J.O. et al., 2008. Initial efficacy of
MI , TTM tailoring and HRI ’ s with multiple
behaviors for employee health promotion.
Preventive medicine, 46(3), pp.226–231.
Puig-ribera, A. et al., 2008. Change in work day
step counts , wellbeing and job performance
in Catalan university employees : a randomised
controlled trial. Promotion Education, 15(4),
pp.11–16.
Puig-ribera, A. et al., 2015. Patterns of Impact
Resulting from a “ Sit Less , Move More ”
Web-Based Program in Sedentary Office
Employees. PloS one, 10(4).
Purath, J. et al., 2004. A Brief Intervention to
Increase Physical Activity in Sedentary Working
Women Une intervention ponctuelle en vue ...
Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 36(1),
pp.79–91.
Racette, S.B. et al., 2009. Worksite
Opportunities for Wellness ( WOW ): Effects
on cardiovascular disease risk factors after 1
year. Preventive Medicine, 49(2-3), pp.108–
114. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ypmed.2009.06.022.
Reijonsaari, K. et al., 2012. The effectiveness
of physical activity monitoring and distance
counseling in an occupational setting – Results
from a randomized controlled trial ( CoAct ).
BMC Public Health, 12(1), p.344.
Ribeiro, M.A., Martins, M.A. Carvalho, C.R.F.,
2014. Interventions to Increase Physical Activity
in Middle-Age Women at the Workplace: A
Randomized Controlled Trial. Medicine and
science in sports and exercise, 46(5), pp.1008–
1015.
Robroek, S.J.W. et al., 2012. Cost-effectiveness
of a long-term Internet-delivered worksite
health promotion programme on physical
activity and nutrition : a cluster randomized
controlled trial. Health education research,
27(3), pp.399–410.
Schopp, L.H. et al., 2017. A randomized
controlled trial to evaluate outcomes of a
workplace self-management intervention and
an intensive monitoring intervention. Health
education research, 32(3), pp.219–232.
Schuna Jr, J.M. et al., 2014. Evaluation of
a workplace treadmill desk intervention:
a randomized controlled trial. Journal of
occupational and environmental medicine,
56(12), pp.1266–1276.
Sertel, M. Dokuztu, F., 2016. The effects of
worksite exercises on physical capabilities of
workers in an industry of a developing country :
A randomized controlled study. Isokinetics and
Exercise Science, 24(3), pp.247–255.
Shafieinia, M. et al., 2016. Effects of a Theory
Based Intervention on Physical Activity Among
Female Employees: A Quasi-Experimental
Study. Asian journal of sports medicine, 7(2),
p.e31534.
Siegel, J.M. et al., 2010. A worksite obesity
intervention: results from a group-randomized
trial. American Journal of Public Health, 100(2),
pp.327–333.
Slootmaker, S.M. et al., 2009. Feasibility
and effectiveness of online physical activity
advice based on a personal activity monitor:
randomized controlled trial. Journal of medical
Internet research, 11(3).
Smith-McLallen, A. et al., 2017. Comparative
Effectiveness of Two Walking Interventions
on Participation, Step Counts, and Health.
American journal of health promotion : AJHP,
31(2), pp.119–127.
Sorensen, G. et al., 2005. Promoting Behavior
Change Among Working-Class , Multiethnic
Workers : Results of the Healthy Directions
– Small Business Study. American journal of
public health, 95(8), pp.1389–1395.
Spittaels, H. et al., 2007. Effectiveness of an
online computer-tailored physical activity
intervention in a real-life setting. Health
education research, 22(3), pp.385–396.
Sternfeld, B. et al., 2009. Improving diet
and physical activity with ALIVE: a worksite
randomized trial. American journal of
Strijk, J.E. et al., 2012. A worksite vitality
intervention to improve older workers ’
lifestyle and vitality-related outcomes : results
of a randomised controlled trial. J Epidemiol
Community Health.
Suggs, S. et al., 2013. Effects of text messaging
in addition to emails on physical activity among
university and college employees in the UK.
Journal of Health Services Research and Policy,
18(1), pp.56–64.
Swartz, A.M. et al., 2014. Peer Reviewed:
Prompts to Disrupt Sitting Time and Increase
Physical Activity at Work, 2011–2012.
Preventing chronic disease, 11.
Tan, A.M. et al., 2016. Efficacy of a workplace
osteoporosis prevention intervention: a cluster
randomized trial. BMC public health, 16(1),
p.859.
Taylor, W.C. et al., 2016. Impact of Booster
Breaks and Computer Prompts on Physical
Activity and Sedentary Behavior Among
Desk-Based Workers: A Cluster-Randomized
Controlled Trial. Preventing chronic disease,
13, p.E155.
von Thiele Schwarz, U., Lindfors, P. Lundberg,
U., 2008. Health-related effects of worksite
interventions involving physical exercise and
reduced workhours. Scandinavian journal of
work, environment health, pp.179–188.
Thorndike, A.N. et al., 2012. NIH Public Access.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine2,
43(1), pp.27–33.
Touger-decker, R., Denmark, R. Bruno,
M., 2010. Workplace Weight Loss Program ;
Comparing Live and Internet Methods. Journal
of occupational and environmental medicine,
52(11), pp.1112–1118.
Tucker, S., Farrington, M. Lanningham-
foster, L.M., 2016. Worksite Physical Activity
Intervention for Ambulatory Clinic Nursing
Staff. Workplace Health and Safety, 64(7),
pp.313–325.
Urda, J.L. et al., 2016. Effects of a Minimal
Workplace Intervention to Reduce Sedentary
Behaviors and Improve Perceived Wellness in
Middle-Aged Women Office Workers. Journal
of physical activity health, 13(8), pp.838–844.
Verweij, L.M. et al., 2012. The application of
an occupational health guideline reduces
sedentary behaviour and increases fruit intake
at work : results from an RCT. Occup Environ
Med.
Viester, L. et al., 2017. Effectiveness of a
Worksite Intervention for Male Construction
Workers on Dietary and Physical Activity
Behaviors, Body Mass Index, and Health
Outcomes: Results of a Randomized Controlled
Trial. American journal of health promotion :
AJHP, p.890117117694450.
Wilson, M.G. et al., 2014. Weight Control
FUEL Your Life : A Translation of the Diabetes
Prevention Program to Worksites. American
Journal of Health Promotion, 30(3), pp.188–197.
Yuan, S. et al., 2009. An intervention program
to promote health-related physical fitness in
nurses. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 18(10),
pp.1404–1411.

Nufﬁeld Health Registered Ofﬁce: Epsom Gateway, Ashley Avenue, Epsom, Surrey, KT18 5AL.
A registered Charity No 205533 (England and Wales), a Charity Registered No SCO41793 and a Company Limited by
Guarantee. Registered in England Company No 00576970.
All our hospitals in England, and those clinics delivering regulated activities, are registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
Our hospital in Glasgow is registered with Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS) and our hospital
and clinic in Cardiff are registered with Healthcare Inspectorate Wales.

A healthier-workplace-nuffield-health-whitepaper

More Related Content

What's hot (17)

Similar to A healthier-workplace-nuffield-health-whitepaper (20)

More from AJP Health and Wellbeing Consultancy (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

A healthier-workplace-nuffield-health-whitepaper