Interventions to Reduce the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease among Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

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.

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

“…These categories (appendix p 9) were assessed in exploration of heterogeneity. Missing data or unclear information were attempted to be resolved by direct contact with authors; when feedback was not received, assumptions were discussed and agreed upon by the investigators (appendix pp [10][11]. Differences in data extraction and bias assessment between investigators were infrequent and resolved by the duplicate abstractors and a third investigator.…”

“…5 Although narrative reviews have suggested benefits of workplace wellness programmes for lifestyle behaviours and cardiometabolic health, 6-10 few quantitative metaanalyses have been done to identify magnitudes of benefits for specific outcomes or employee-related or intervention-related factors that may influence effectiveness. [11][12][13] Also, most of these analyses were limited to a specific population, intervention targets (eg, diet, physical activity), or outcomes (eg, fruit intake, bodyweight, glycaemia), with few included studies (eg, ten total studies 11 ) in each. To our knowledge, no previous systematic review and meta-analysis has comprehensively assessed the effect of workplace wellness programmes on a broad set of dietary and dietrelated health indicators.…”

Effects of a Yoga Program in Reducing Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors in Workers of Small Workplaces: A Pilot Test

“…Job stress has emerged as a common occupational health problem second only to musculoskeletal diseases. Job stress is a key risk factor that not only induces CVD [8][9][10][11][12][13][14], but also contributes to financial loss and reduced productivity as a result of disasters and accidents, which can undermine the competitiveness of local communities as well as the nation. For this reason, job stress is acknowledged as a factor that threatens the development and health of business owners, local communities, and the nation [15].…”

Effectiveness of an Intervention Aimed at Improving Information for Patients with High Cardiovascular Risk: INFORISK Clinical Trial

“…Similar to the results of our study, a recently published meta-analysis that examined the effect of lifestyle interventions on CV disease risk factors among workers found that the interventions were effective for SBP (0.66, 95% CI: 0.27–1.60), DBP (0.63, 95% CI: 0.21–1.06), and BMI (0.71, 95% CI: 0.15–1.11) but were ineffective for LDL-cholesterol (0.46, 95% CI: −0.02, 0.93) [ 20 ]. A pragmatic randomized controlled trial that assessed the effectiveness of a complex intervention for the primary prevention of CV disease found significant differences (in favor of the intervention group) in DBP and waist circumference [ 21 ].…”

“…A pragmatic randomized controlled trial that assessed the effectiveness of a complex intervention for the primary prevention of CV disease found significant differences (in favor of the intervention group) in DBP and waist circumference [ 21 ]. In both studies [ 20 , 21 ], a significant reduction in total cholesterol or LDL cholesterol was not observed in the intervention group.…”