Table 1.

Participation levels and determinants of participation in educational or counselling worksite health promotion programmes

Study	Study design	Study population	Worksite health promotion programme	Participation level	Determinants of participation	OR [95%CI]
Franklin 2006 [16]	cohort	Employees of an insurance company (n = 960)	Daily e-mail messages with links self-monitoring on nutrition and physical activity over 6 months.	40% (n = 388) (n = 345 completed baseline health survey)	male gender age (30–49) age (50+) white ethnicity married income, $30.000–$59.999 income, > $59.999	0.34 [0.24–0.49]* 1.30 [0.72–2.33] 1.47 [0.79–2.74] 1.22 [0.78–1.93] 1.43 [1.08–1.91]* 1.50 [1.08–2.09]* 0.90 [0.58–1.41]
Thomas 2006 [20]	cohort	Government employees (n = 3500)	1 information session with goal setting and subsequent pedometer use and e-mail support to increase physical activity over 4 weeks.	34% (n = 1195) (n = 927 provided demographic information)	male gender age (30–49) age (50+)	0.46 [0.39–0.54]* 0.73 [0.60–0.89]* 0.82 [0.66–1.02]
McCarty 2005 [19]	cohort	Employees of a health care system (n = 6539)	Self-monitoring and weekly e-mail support to increase physical activity and a healthy diet over a 16-week period	17% (n = 1129)	male gender	0.10 [0.08–0.14]*
Marshall 2003 [17]	RCT	University employees (n = 1409, results on n = 800 responded to questionnaire)	8 week programme with printed (I1) or website (I2) education and 4 reinforcement moments respectively by letter and e-mail.	46% (n = 655)	male gender age (yrs, mean) intermediate or high education married BMI (kg/m2, mean) good or excellent general health full-time employment academic job classification	0.77 [0.53–1.10] Δ = 0 yrs; d = 0.00 0.70 [0.46–1.07] 1.15 [0.78–1.70] Δ = 1 kg/m2; d = 0.14 0.69 [0.37–1.27] 0.69 [0.41–1.16] 0.79 [0.55–1.14]
Cornfeld 2002 [15]	cohort	Employees and spouses of 6 companies (n = 21396)	1-time health risk assessment with personalized feedback letters on cancer risk factors	21% (n = 4395)	male gender age (yrs, mean) Caucasian ethnicity	1.16 [1.09–1.24]* P: 44.8; all: 43.0 4.05 [3.52–4.67]*
Gold 2000 [21]	nonrandomized controlled trial	Employees of 6 organizations from the private and public sector (n = 1741)	Education materials, followed by 6-monthly telephone counselling sessions for 12 to 24 months on 7 risk areas (physical activity, nutrition, weight, smoking, stress management, back care, and cholesterol control)	35% (n = 607)	male gender age (yrs, mean) # health risks (lifestyle areas, 0–13)	1.13 [0.93–1.38] Δ = -1 yr Δ = -0.34 health risks*
Blake 1996 [14]	cohort community intervention trial	Employees in businesses participating in the Minnesota Heart Health Program intervention (n = 17626)	3 exercise competitions between companies with recording the type and minutes of daily exercise.	37% (n = 6495)	male gender company size, 45–500 employees company size, > 500 employees	0.28 [0.26–0.31]* 0.22 [0.19–0.25]* 0.09 [0.08–0.10]*
Hooper 1995 [22]	cross-sectional	University employees and spouses (n = 338)	Self-monitoring to increase physical activity over a period of 20 weeks.	30% (n = 103)	male gender higher education white ethnicity married full-time employment faculty employees	1.20 [0.70–2.07] 1.06 [0.66–1.71] 1.18 [0.45–3.11] 0.91 [0.50–1.66] 1.86 [1.01–3.43]* 0.68 [0.40–1.13]
Baer 1993 [13]	Nonrandomized controlled trial	Management-level male employees with elevated total cholesterol levels (n = 70)	An individual instruction, every 3 months group meetings, and monthly telephone support to decrease cholesterol level.	47% (n = 33)	age (yrs, mean) aerobic activity (days/wk, mean) cholesterol level > 6.17 weight (kg, mean) % body fat (mean) non smoker	Δ = 9 yrs*; d = 2.55 Δ = 0 days/wk; d = 0.00 14.3 [4.2–50.0]* Δ = 1 kg; d = 0.39 Δ = 1%; d = 0.24 3.00 [0.56–16.03]
Mavis 1992 [18]	cross-sectional	Stratified sample of university employees (n = 110 invited, 81% response)	Health fair and health habit modification programmes on exercise, weight control, stress management and smoking cessation.	25% of respondents (n = 22)	male gender age (yrs, mean) married/cohabiting income above $30.000 faculty employees (vs clerical/support)	0.30 [0.11–0.83]* Δ = 5.6* 1.89 [0.70–5.11] 0.62 [0.19–2.03] 0.11 [0.02–0.60]*