TABLE 2.

Characteristics of the 39 articles

Code	Studies (Author, Year of publication)	Study Setting (Location, Environment)	Sample [Number: Total/Female/Male Age: Mean (SD) or Range]	Intervention/Comparison description	Duration intervention follow up	The physical Activity Measurement tool (self‐report/objective)	Unit of measurement	Indicator	Result of quality assessment (risk of bias)
Effective/RCT
1	Nicholas D Gilson et al. 2009	Major regional universities (UK, Australia and Spain)	179/141/38 41.3 (10)	‐ Control group (n = 60; maintain normal behavior) route‐based ‐ Walking group (n = 60; at least 10 minutes sustained walking each workday) ‐ An incidental walking group (n = 59; walking in workday tasks)	10 weeks	Objective: Pedometer	Step counts	Mean difference	Some concern
2	Holly Blake et al. 2015	UK hospital workplace	296/41/255 19–67 years	I1:2 messages per week to increase physical activity by SMS I2: 2 messages per week to increase physical activity by e‐mail	12 weeks F: 0‐6‐12‐16 weeks	Self‐report: Global Physical Activity Questionnaire	Frequency, d/week Duration, h/d	Mean (SD) in Repeated measures analysis	Some concern
3	Charlotte L Brakenridge et al. 2016	Organization in different cities in Australia (Sydney & Brisbane)	153/72/81 40.0 (8.0) 37.6 (7.8)	The organizational‐level intervention for both groups with additional support from a wearable activity tracker for intervention group	I:3 months F:12 months	Thigh‐worn activPAL3 monitor	Work Hours and overall hours standing, stepping and step count Min/10 h Min/16 h	Adjusted mean change (95% CI) within groups Adjusted mean difference (95% CI) between groups	Some concern
4	M Fournier et al. 2016	Service company in the south of France	49/28/21 47.5 (8.29)	I1: a group attending supervised PA sessions (PA condition) I2: a group attending the same sessions plus receiving text messages before each session (PA + SMS condition)	28 weeks	Self‐report: IPAQ	MET/week	Estimate of repeated measures GLM	Some concern
5	Julie A Gazmararian et al. 2012	Main campus of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia	410/252/158 21–73 years	Control Gym Gym+Edu Gym+Time Gym+Edu + Time	9 months	7 Day Physical Activity Recall (PAR)	Percent of more days per week of adequate PA	RR	Low risk
6	Florence‐Emilie Kinnafick et al. 2016	A large UK University	65/61/4 18–66 years	C: neutral SMS I: need supportive SMS two text messages per week	I: 10 weeks F: 4 months	7‐Day PAR	Time of Moderate Vigorous Physical activity (min)	Mean difference	Some concern
7	Minna Aittasalo et al. 2012	20 office‐based worksites in Southern Finland	241/165/76 44.1 (9.4) 45.3 (9.1)	C: COMP: only data collection I: STEP: (1) A 1‐hour preliminary meeting (2) Self‐monitoring of PA (3) Monthly e‐mail	I:6 months F:6 months	IPAQ	Walking at work Walking for transportation Walking stairs Total walking (Weekly minutes)	Odds ratio Geometric mean ratio	Some concern
8	Naomi Burn et al. 2017	Flinders University of South Australia	71/66/5 44.4 (9.3) 48.3 (11.2) 46.8 (7.9)	C:control I1:an after‐work group that had 3 × 60 min instructor‐led PA sessions each week of the six‐week program I2: an in‐work group that had 2 × 15 min instructor‐led PA periods 3 days/wk at mid‐morning and mid‐afternoon.	6 weeks (40 days)	Self‐reported AAS (Active Australia Survey)	Total, Vigorous PA (Min/Week)	Mean difference	Some concern
9	Marcos Ausenka Riberio et al. 2014	Large University Hospital In Sao Paulo, Brazil	195/195/0 40–50 years	MTC (Minimal treatment Comparator) PedIC (Pedometer‐based individual counseling) PedGC (Pedometer‐based group counseling) AT (Aerobic training)	I:3 months F:3 months	Objective: Pedometer Self‐report: IPAQ	Step count	Mean difference	Low risk
10	C Pedersen et al. 2018	Norwegian Post delivering mail and logistic services	202/48/154 42.5 (11.65)	I: The intervention group was offered six sessions of group‐based intervention elements: Two workshops and four PA support group meetings, a total of 7.5 h C: The control group were not offered any employer initiated group‐sessions between baseline and post‐test assessments	I:16 weeks F: 5 mounts	Self‐report [the three‐item questionnaire International Physical Activity Index (IPAI)]	Habitual PA in terms of the average frequency, duration, and intensity per week	Mean difference	Some concern
11	Rod K Dishman et al. 2010	Home Depot Inc. in the USA	1442/995/447 36.2 (10) 19–64	I: ‐ Goal setting (personal goals and team goals) ‐ Organizational action / C: Monthly newsletters describing the health benefits of physical activity	I: 12 weeks	Self‐report with handbook logs/Objective with pedometer	Daily pedometer steps ‐ Weekly number of 10‐min blocks of MVPA ‐Biweekly self‐ratings indicators of their satisfaction with current physical activity levels, their confidence (i.e. self‐efficacy), commitment and intention to carry out the new goal	Mean difference	Some concern
12	Karen Van Hoye et al. 2018	Flemish employees (Belgium)	227/124/103 41 (10) 19–67	Four intervention groups regarding 4 types of feedback: 1. Minimal Intervention Group (MIG; no feedback) 2. Pedometer Group (PG; feedback on daily steps only) 3. Display Group (DG; feedback on daily steps, on daily moderate to‐vigorous physical activity [MVPA] and on total energy expenditure [EE]) 4. Coaching Group (CoachG; same as DG with need supportive coaching)	I: 4 weeks F: 12 months	Self‐ report with FPACQ*/Objective with SWE** and Pedometer *The Flemish Physical Activity Computerized Questionnaire **The Sense Wear Armband	‐ Daily physical activity level (PAL) ‐ Metabolic Equivalent of Task [MET] ‐ Number of daily Steps ‐ Daily minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) ‐ Active daily EE (EE >3 METs) ‐ Total daily EE	Mean difference	Low risk
13	Nirjhar Dutta et al. 2014	Office workers at Caldrea, Inc., a company located in the Twin Cities Metro Area, MN, USA	28/19/9 Mean Age: 40.4	I: Sit‐Stand Desks (SSDs) C: Usual sitting desks	I: (cross‐over design) − 4 weeks ‐2 weeks washout − 4 weeks F: the same time, except washout period	Self‐reported Occupational Sitting and PA questionnaire (OSPAQ)/accelerometers	(OSPAQ) score/Steps/PA intensity	Mean difference	Some concerns
14	Wendell C Taylor et al. 2016	4 worksites in Texas, USA	175/145/30 Mean Age: 43	1. Booster Break arm: 15 minutes break with a structured series of stretching, strengthening and aerobic movements, followed by a 60‐second meditation 2. Computer‐prompt arm: an interrupted sedentary time by 3‐minute breaks at five hourly intervals daily 3.Control Group or Usual‐break arm	6 months	Self‐report (long Version of IPAQ)/Pedometer	METs/Total steps per week/Average steps per day	B of regression	Some concerns
15	Kazuhiro Watanabe et al. 2018	Different types of worksites in the Kanto area in Tokyo, Japan For white‐color employees	190/66/123 48.14 (11.4) 43.11 (10.0)	I: Selected interventions from a list of 13 interventions, feed backs (baseline,3 months, and 6 months), baseline occupational health services C: Feed backs (baseline,3 months, and 6 months), baseline occupational health services	I: 3 months F: 6 months	The Japanese version of Global Physical Activity Questionnaire	MET/week	B of regression	Some concerns
Effective/Non‐RCT
16	Charles Sounan et al. 2013 A pretest posttest study design	University‐affiliated multi‐site healthcare center in Canada comprised of six hospitals and one administrative site	310/286/24 47.6 (9.1) 24–70 years	I: “Wellness Challenge”: 1 h lecture, 30 min evaluation, 8 week pedometer activity challenge	I: 8 weeks	Pedometer Self‐administered questionnaire IPAQ short form	Mean (SD) of: ‐ Vigorous activity MET ‐ Moderate activity MET ‐ Walking MET ‐ Total MET score ‐ Days walking 10 min	Mean difference & Activity classification based on step counting	Some concern
17	M H Baghianimoghaddam et al. 2016 Pretest posttest design with comparison group	Tabriz University located in Azerbaijan province at North‐West of Iran	154/154/0 36.5 (6.7) 37.2 (7.3)	(1) Increase step counts (try to increase 500 steps a day this week); (2) providing solutions to overcome barriers; (3) Recommending strategies to help perceived benefits of PA; (4) Suggestions for increasing social support and encouragement to promote PA as team work and worksite step competition; (5) Recommendation to promote staircase instead of the elevator, using their break times to walk and to park their cars further away from building.	16 weeks	Pedometer IPAQ	‐ METs from IPAQ ‐ Step counts	‐ Mean difference	Some concern
18	Minna Aittasalo et al. 2017	12 small or medium‐size workplaces (Finland)	296/222/74 42.6 (10.9)	Moving To Business (MTB) with 3 phases: starting, active, closing A list of multilevel interventions	1 year	Questionnaire Accelerometer	PA and sitting during working and leisure times	‐ Change in mean minutes ‐ Change in % wear‐time	Some concern
19	Pauline Manon Genin et al. 2017 Non‐RCT 3‐arms (Pilot study)	Tertiary sector workers in a manufacture	95/33/62 44 (9.9)	(i) Control group (CON) engaged in less than 150 minutes moderate physical activity per week for at least 1 year, according to the IPAQ short‐form questionnaire and not motivated to start the worksite physical activity program (ii) Novice group (NOV) participants unsupported by physical activity and who started the worksite physical activity program at the beginning of the study, (iii) participants engaged in the worksite physical activity program for the last 2 years at least (minimum of two 45 minutes sessions per week) (EXP)	5 months	IPAQ‐SF	MET/week	Mean Difference	Some concern
20	Jan Keller et al. 2016	German pharmaceutical company	1063/610/453 39.0 (10.1) 16–62 years	Workplace health promotion (WHP) The WHP for intenders and changing actors consisted of an intervention that predominantly addressed self‐efficacy (participants' responses on their successful past activities& verbal persuasion), action planning, and coping planning (barrier) and contained up to 44 partly interactive pages on the study website	12 weeks	Godin Leisure Time‐Questionnaire	Min/week	p‐value of Linear slope estimate	Low risk
21	Isabel Hess et al. 2014 Pre and post‐test design	Liverpool Hospital, UK	389/361/28 20–67 years Mean Age: 39.1	TEAM Challenge (TEAM = Take steps, Eat well, And Measure up).	12 weeks	Active Australia (AA) questionnaire	Frequency	Before and after challenge median (IQR)	Low risk
22	Yun‐Ping Lin et al. 2017 Pretest posttest comparison group design	Two aerospace industrial workplaces in Taiwan	99/52/47 52.1 (6.57) 46.8 (9.75)	I: Sit Less Walk More composed of 5 components C: a newsletter monthly	12 weeks	7‐item International Physical Activity Questionnaire (Taiwan) short‐form (IPAQ‐SF)	Walking, MET‐min/wk Moderate, MET‐min/wk Vigorous, MET‐min/wk Total, MET‐min/wk	Coefficient (SE) for Group*Time Mean Difference for each group	Low risk
23	Gabriel A Koepp et al. 2013	Educational Credit Management Corporation (ECMC), a financial services corporation; in Oakdale, MN, USA	36/25/11 42 (9.9)	(access to) treadmill desk intervention	1 year	belt‐worn accelerometer	activity units (AU)/day min/day	Mean diff	Low risk
24	S Hazaveei et al. 2018	Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Iran	80/44/36 41–50 years	4 class sessions, group walking with training program, 2 pool sessions, call and weekly SMS	I: Not mentioned F: 1,2 months	IPAQ	Prevalence	Percent	Some concern
25	Anass Arrogi et al. 2017	A large pharmaceutical company in Flanders, Belgium	300/234/66 42 (9)	I: Two one‐hour in‐person counseling sessions, and three virtual counseling through e‐mail or telephone at weeks three, 6 and 9. Moreover, there were 2 other behavioral change techniques including identification barriers and self‐monitoring F: Only monitoring	I: 3 months F: 9 months	The 7‐item short version of the IPAQ/the Sense Wear Pro3 Armband	Questionnaire Score/Steps/PA intensity in MET/Time of activity and intensity	Mean difference	Some concern
26	M Vahedian‐Shahroodi et al. 2016	Mashhad Factories Industrial, Iran	76/76/0 Mean Age: 27.91	I: Four 15‐minute counseling sessions with intervals of one week in the first month then in weeks 6, 10, 14 and 18, by examining stage of the behavior change and using the five‐step counseling process C: Health, sport and physical activity pamphlet	20 weeks	IPAQ (short form)	Score	Mean difference	Some concern
27	Anna Puig‐Ribera et al. 2015	Six campuses in four Spanish Universities in Galicia, the Basque Country and Catalonia	264/179/93 42 (10)	I: Workplace web‐based intervention (Walk@WorkSpain, W@WS) C: Maintained normal behavior	3 phases: 1.Ramping:8 weeks 2. Maintenance:9–19 3. follow up: 2 months	Pedometer	Steps	Mean difference	Low Risk
28	Carling E. Butler et al. 2015	The employees at Washington University in St. Louis, MO, USA	121/103/18 46 (11)	I: 1. The web‐based Activity Tracker with 8 weeks of pedometer‐based walking and tracking activities 2. Individualized walking plans based on a 10‐Question Walking Plan Quiz 3. Weekly wellness education sessions 4. Consultation opportunities 5. Participation rewards 6. Goal setting	I: 8 weeks F: immediately after 8 weeks	Pedometer	Average Daily Steps (LSM) Least Squares Means/Odds Ratio	Mean difference/Odds Ratio	Low Risk
29	M. Ryan Mason et al. 2017	A Large southeastern university, Kentucky, USA	2206	A PA intervention with tiered incentives (value: $10.50–$29.00), based on their pre‐intervention PA level in 4 groups: 1. <6000 2. 6000 to 7999 3. 8000 to 9999 4. ≥10 000 steps/d	I:6 weeks Pre: 1 week Post:1 week	Accelerometer	Step/d	Mean difference	Some concern
Non‐effective/RCTs
30	Mika Liukkonen et al. 2017	Medium‐sized enterprise in recycling in Finland	121 42 (10)	Group A received only the separate test results (not the Body Age index). Group B received the Body Age results (index in years) Group C received both Body Age and separate test results, as well as a training computer (FT60; Polar Electro Inc.)	1 year	IPAQ‐SF	MET/min/week	Mean difference	Some concern
31	Rosemary RC McEachan et al. 2011	44 UK worksites (based within 5 organizations: Bus Company; Hospital; Local Government Council; National Government Organization; University)	1260/690/570 42.46 (10.77) 43.13 (10.41)	The intervention consisted of a 3‐month toolkit of activities consisted of 8 key components	I:3 months F:3,9 months	IPAQ‐SF	B of Regression model	Beta and CI	Some concern
32	Anne N. Thorndike et al. 2012	Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), a teaching hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, USA	330/285/45 44.2 (11.8) 41.6 (13.6)	I: Internet and personal contacts C: No intervention	I: 9 months F: 1 year	Self‐report with web‐based logs/Objective with pedometer	Average time spent per week in physical activities, such as walking or running, bicycling, or other aerobic exercise/steps	Mean difference	Some concern
33	Jennifer L. Reed et al. 2018	Nurses working in a cardiovascular setting, Canada	76/74/2 46 (11)	Three intervention groups: 1.Individual 2.Friends 3.Team An intervention providing participants with feedback from an activity monitor coupled with a web‐based individual, friend or team PA challenge, on their physical activity	I: 6 weeks F: the same	Accelerometer	‐ Steps ‐ Minutes of MVPA	F	Some concern
34	Nancy M. Gell et al. 2015	Female employees at a public university in the Southeastern USA	87/87/0 48.9 (10.6) 45.4 (10.7)	I: sending 3 text messages per week to their personal cell phone via SMS which were motivational, informational, and specific to performing physical activity C: All participants received the maps display walking routs in the area. Furthermore, they had access to the web sites links which show guidelines and educational materials for physical activity	I: 24 weeks F: the same	Pedometer	Steps	Mean steps	Some concern
35	Rodriguez‐Hernandez MG. et al. 2019	Sedentary office employees at Auburn University, USA	68/51/17 48 (9) 46 (9) 42 (10)	I: ‐ Intervention group 1: continues walking, ‐ Intervention group 2: intermittent walking C: All participant received move bands and recommendation to walk 10 000 steps per day	I:10 weeks F:1 week	RPE (Rating of Perceived Exertion) as a self‐report tool for physical activity intensity/ ‐Move band for 10 weeks ‐waist worn accelerometer for baseline, weeks 6 and 11, as objective tools to count steps	RPE mean score/Steps	Mean difference/F	Some concern
36	Suzan JW Robroek et al. 2012	Six companies in the Netherlands From health care organizations (n = 2), commercial services (n = 2) and an executive branch of government (n = 2)	924/472/454 Mean Age: 42 20–63 years	I: A standard worksite health promotion program, plus access to an individual Health Portal with four main parts: 1. a personal coach, 2. a monitoring activity, 3. a computer‐based advice, and 4. opportunities to contact health professionals C: The standard worksite health promotion program (Access to a limited Health Portal, consisting of: ‐ General information on health topics)	I: 12 months full intervention and 12 months partial intervention (without 4th part) F: 24 months	IPAQ (short form)	MET‐minutes per week	Odds Ratio	Some concern
Non‐effective/Non‐RCTs
37	Emma J Adams et al. 2017	Non‐RCT – Field trial	5512	A menu of options was provided with suggestions for activities which could be delivered	About 1–2 years	Self‐reported physical activity was assessed using a single item measure of physical activity Work‐related physical activity was assessed using a question taken from the European Prospective Investigation in Cancer and Nutrition questionnaire (EPIC)	‐ Mode of transport to and from work ‐ Time spent walking ‐ Incidental walking ‐ Mediators of behavior change ‐ Colleague support	Percent of each variable	Some concern
38	Katrien A De Cocker et al. 2010 Quasi‐experimental controlled pretest posttest study	A social service Belgian company with 3main selection criteria ‐ White‐collar workers with a sedentary job ‐ At least 500 eligible employees ‐ No earlier participation in a pedometer‐based program	298	A PA intervention based on ‘10 000 Steps Ghent’, a whole‐community intervention The underlying idea is that interventions should include multilevel strategies focusing on behavioral and (social) environmental factors	20 weeks	Pedometer	Step count	Mean difference	Low risk
39	RF Hunter et al. 2013	An office‐based workplace setting in Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK	406/272/134 43.32 (9.37)	I: Getting a financial incentive for their times of physical activity based on the PAL (Physical Activity Loyalty) card C: No financial incentive. Only monitoring by the PAL	I: 12 weeks F: 6 months	The Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ)/Objective records based on the PAL (Physical Activity Loyalty) card	Questionnaire Score/time of PA	Mean difference	Some concerns