Key result
Workplace lifestyle interventions improve SBP, DBP, and BMI but fail to reduce weight or LDL-C.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to examine the effect of lifestyle interventions on cardiovascular disease risk factors among workers.
Do lifestyle interventions improve cardiovascular disease risk factors in workers?
Meta-Analysis
Do lifestyle interventions improve cardiovascular disease risk factors in workers?
Standardized Mean Difference: 0.66 (95% CI 0.27–1.6)
p-value: p=0.001
Lifestyle interventions in workers effectively improve blood pressure and BMI, but have no significant effect on weight or LDL-cholesterol.
Supports workplace programs for BP and BMI control; extends evidence on selective cardiometabolic benefits in workers.
This study examined the effect of lifestyle interventions on cardiovascular disease risk factors among workers. The study comprised a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. Relevant controlled trials were searched, with selections based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Of 1174 identified publications, one low-quality study was excluded. Finally, 10 were analyzed. The effect sizes were analyzed for heterogeneity, and random effect models (Hedge's g) were used. A subgroup analysis was performed on the follow-up point of intervention (≤ 12 months vs. > 12 months). Publication bias was also analyzed. Interventions were effective for systolic (g = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.27-1.60) and diastolic blood pressure (g = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.21-1.06), and BMI (g = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.15-1.11). Interventions were ineffective for weight (g = 0.18, 95% CI: -0.04, 0.40) and LDL-cholesterol (g = 0.46, 95% CI: -0.02, 0.93). There was high heterogeneity between studies (I2 =78.45 to I2 = 94.61). There was no statistically significant publication bias, except for systolic blood pressure. Interventions to reduce risk of cardiovascular disease risk might be effective in improving physical outcomes, but additional high-quality trials are needed in the future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hwang et al. (2020) conducted a meta-analysis in Cardiovascular disease risk factors. Lifestyle interventions vs. Control or usual care was evaluated on Systolic blood pressure (Hedge's g 0.66, 95% CI 0.27-1.60, p=0.001). Lifestyle interventions among workers significantly improved systolic blood pressure (Hedge's g 0.66), diastolic blood pressure, and BMI, but were ineffective for weight and LDL-cholesterol.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: