↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness of workplace dietary interventions: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The effectiveness of workplace dietary interventions: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0200-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah A. Smith, Amelia A. Lake, Carolyn Summerbell, Vera Araujo-Soares, Frances Hillier-Brown

Abstract

The lack of evidence of the role of workplaces as settings for behaviour change delivery and the failure to recognise and address the complexity of the work environment has been acknowledged. This systematic review and meta-analysis will identify the effectiveness of dietary interventions in the workplace facilitating an understanding of what works, why and how by identifying key components of and examining the theoretical models of behaviour change underpinning successful dietary interventions in the workplace. We will conduct searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and PubMed for studies that assess dietary interventions based within workplace settings in any country, of any length of time or duration of follow-up. We will include all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies with a control group. Risk of bias of included studies will be assessed using a tool adapted from the Cochrane Public Health Review Group's recommended Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Meta-analysis will be conducted if appropriate, or a narrative synthesis will be conducted following the ESRC Narrative Synthesis Guidance. This paper outlines the study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis that will identify, critically appraise, and summarise the relevant evidence on the effectiveness and implications of interventions to promote healthier dietary behaviours in the workplace. This review will give an overview of the evidence and provide a guide for development of interventions promoting dietary behaviour change in workplaces. PROSPERO CRD42015015175.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 85 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 23%
Student > Bachelor 14 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 18 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 9%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Psychology 5 6%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 18 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 February 2016.
All research outputs
#6,875,825
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,261
of 2,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,050
of 405,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#23
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 405,859 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.