Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Feb 28;18(2):e0282118. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282118

A scoping review of digital workplace wellness interventions in low- and middle-income countries

Yi Chiann Thai 1, Deanna Sim 2, Tracy A McCaffrey 2,*, Amutha Ramadas 1, Hema Malini 3, Jessica L Watterson 1,*
Editor: Ali A Weinstein4
PMCID: PMC9974126  PMID: 36854022

Abstract

Introduction

Digital technology-based interventions have gained popularity over the last two decades, due to the ease with which they are scalable and low in implementation cost. Multicomponent health promotion programmes, with significant digital components, are increasingly being deployed in the workplace to assess and promote employees’ health behaviours and reduce risk of chronic diseases. However, little is known about workplace digital health interventions in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs).

Methods

Various combinations of keywords related to “digital health”, “intervention”, “workplace” and “developing country” were applied in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, Scopus and Cochrane Library for peer-reviewed articles in English language. Manual searches were performed to supplement the database search. The screening process was conducted in two phases and a narrative synthesis to summarise the data. The review protocol was written prior to undertaking the review (OSF Registry:10.17605/OSF.IO/QPR9J).

Results

The search strategy identified 10,298 publications, of which 24 were included. Included studies employed the following study designs: randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 12), quasi-experimental (n = 4), pilot studies (n = 4), pre-post studies (n = 2) and cohort studies (n = 2). Most of the studies reported positive feedback of the use of digital wellness interventions in workplace settings.

Conclusions

This review is the first to map and describe the impact of digital wellness interventions in the workplace in LMICs. Only a small number of studies met the inclusion criteria. Modest evidence was found that digital workplace wellness interventions were feasible, cost-effective, and acceptable. However, long-term, and consistent effects were not found, and further studies are needed to provide more evidence. This scoping review identified multiple digital health interventions in LMIC workplace settings and highlighted a few important research gaps.

Introduction

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), 3.5 billion people, nearly half of the world’s population, are employees. On average, a full-time employee spends more than one-third of his or her days, five days a week at their workplace. Due to the large population and long hours spent at work, the workplace has been a favourable setting to implement health promotion programs, motivating employee health behaviour change. WHO has estimated that 2.1% of all deaths and 2.7% of the global disease burden are attributed to quantified occupation risks [1]. Of these, employees in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) have contributed to the largest portions of deaths and disability in the workplace settings. Evidence has suggested a rising need for WWPs in LMICs [2].

WWPs are typically designed to reduce medical spending, increase employee’s productivity and enhance their well-being [3]. Research explored the link between employee health and work productivity [4, 5]. Besides absenteeism as an indicator for work productivity, there is also an extent of limitation due to health problems even when employees are present at work. For example, obese workers may experience greater challenges at work compared to normal weight workers [6]. Both absenteeism and presenteeism are strongly associated with poor employee’s status and behaviours, including obesity, insomnia, depression or physical inactive which have been proven to cause detrimental burden to organizations’ economic [711]. This poor workplace performance which is caused by physical or mental health issues is often underestimated by the organisation. Thus, it is essential to build a healthy work environment and address employee’s health issues.

Studies have grown exponentially in a short time as digital health is progressing rapidly due to advances in technology and applications. Multicomponent design which involves various support from healthcare professionals, employees support groups, telephone-based coaching and more recently web and mobile-delivered programs, has been proven to be the most effective approach in addressing occupational health issues [1217]. Digital technology-based intervention is increasingly being deployed in the workplace due in part to their scalability to a large population and cost-effective approach when compared with traditional health intervention used. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the digital transformation and brought more people on the digital health journey. The remote work model might affect the implementation of WWPs and thus, digital intervention may be more feasible and practical in this new norm. Also, digital workplace wellness allows all employees to access the health promotion content from anywhere at any time with the help of technology. Nonetheless, it is worth discovering whether digital workplace wellness is effective in modifying health behaviours. Employee populations potentially have much to gain from digital intervention for health behaviours promotion, yet little is known about the implementation of digital-based technology intervention in the LMICs workplace context as most of the studies reported were in developed countries. Hence, this scoping review aims to explore and provide a comprehensive synthesis of current evidence in relation to the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of the digital workplace wellness intervention in the LMICs settings.

Methods

Study design

This scoping review utilises systematic searching methods and is guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology [18] and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-Scr) [19]. Ethical approval was not sought as the data were publicly available. A scoping review approach was chosen to examine the volume of existing literature and provide an overview of its focus, such as the digital components used, and health outcomes targeted. Specifically, we aim to explore the following research questions:

  1. How have digital technology interventions been conducted in the workplace in LMICs?

  2. What research has been done and what are the effects of these interventions on health- and job performance-related outcomes?

  3. What are the research gaps that can be identified from these interventions as to improve health behaviours in the workplace in LMICs?

The protocol of this scoping review has been registered with Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/QPR9J).

Data sources and search strategy

We systematically searched 6 databases, including OVID Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL Plus and Cochrane Library. Four themes of keywords “digital health”, “intervention”, “workplace” and “developing country” were used to guide the search and a more detailed search strategy with relevant synonyms and medical subject heading (MeSH) terms, combined with Boolean Operator AND is provided below:

  1. "Digital health” OR ehealth OR mhealth OR "mobile health" OR digital* OR web* OR internet* OR online OR smartphone* OR "cell phone*" OR "mobile phone*" OR telephone* OR application* OR "activity monitor" OR tracker OR pedometer OR technolog* OR messaging OR whatsapp* OR "whatsapp-based" OR "wechat*" OR "wechat-based" OR "social media"

  2. Wellness OR wellbeing OR lifestyle* OR “workplace wellness” OR “occupational health” OR “health promotion” OR "health behavio?r*" OR intervention* OR program* OR education OR "physical activity" OR exercise* OR health* OR diet OR nutrition OR food OR "healthy eating" OR "mental health" OR "chronic disease*" OR sedentary OR "sedentary behavio?r*" OR stress* OR sleep*

  3. Workplace OR employee* OR occupation* OR work* OR industr* OR office OR job* OR "job performance" OR "work engagement"

  4. LMICs country list modified based on 2022 fiscal year classification [2].

The database search was limited to peer-reviewed original articles in the English language, human studies, and age group >18 years where possible restriction was imposed. Articles were only included from 2010–2021 to avoid the inclusion of obsolete digital components such as CD-ROMs and personal digital assistants (PDAs) which are not applicable in the current digital era. A sample of search strategy as performed in OVID MEDLINE on 15 December 2021 is shown in S2 Table.

This search strategy was refined after initial searches were run in October 2021 and resulted in few relevant studies. At the same time, the research team performed a manual search in Google Scholar and identified relevant studies that were not included in the database results. The search terms were reviewed and revised, drawing on terms used in the publications identified manually, and with input from Monash University librarians. These search term revisions resulted in a higher number of relevant results, including the papers that had been located through manual searching, indicating they were more effective than the initial search terms. All searches were rerun with these search terms in December 2021.

Study selection

Covidence software [20] was used to facilitate the screening process. All records retrieved were imported into Covidence where the duplicate records were automatically removed. Two reviewers first screened independently the titles and abstracts of the publications, and then proceeded to screen full text articles to determine the eligibility of the papers. Both reviewers screened all the articles. The screening was conducted according to predetermined eligibility criteria (Table 1). All conflicts were resolved through discussion with the research team. Emails were sent to corresponding authors as needed to get relevant information such as full texts of papers which could not be found online to further confirm the eligibility of the paper.

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
• Peer-reviewed publication
• Published in English language
• Conducted among adult employees in any work environment (excluding students alone) in any of the LMICs, as defined by the World Bank List of Economies 2022 [21]. This includes interventions in companies spanning multiple countries as long as at least one country is defined as an LMIC.
• Reported an intervention with at least one digital component (web/ mobile/ SMS/ phone applications)
• Presented qualitative or quantitative data relevant to health-related outcomes, work-related outcomes, or design-related outcomes (e.g., satisfaction, feasibility, acceptability, engagement, facilitators/barriers, perceptions about digital interventions).
• Any study design including pilot studies
• Wellness activities implemented by any parties (employer, government, third parties, etc.)
• Not conducted in human population
• Review articles
• Not a full-text, peer-reviewed article (book chapter, conference abstract, monograph, etc.)
• Protocols and study designs
• Did not report the details of the intervention and/or outcomes
• Special occupational groups without typical freedoms (e.g., soldiers), or with informal employment (e.g., sex workers)

Data extraction

Two reviewers conducted the data extraction from half of the 24 finalised articles (12 each). Information that was extracted included: country, year of publication, study design, participant characteristics, inclusion and exclusion criteria, intervention duration and follow-up, intervention components, measured outcomes, and main findings. As the scoping review is qualitative in nature, we performed narrative data synthesis according to five groups of identified outcomes (as shown in Table 3), namely Lifestyle (A) including smoking and cardiovascular disease risk, Weight Management (B), Physical Activity (PA) (C), Job performance (D) including work engagement, as well as other health outcomes (E) such as sleep, stress, and ergonomic condition. The reviewers worked independently on extracting the data of 12 studies each using a shared Google document, then later finalised and refined the data extraction table together. All conflicts were resolved through discussion with the research team.

Table 3. Summary of the included studies (n = 24) grouped by main targeted health outcome.

Author, Country, Publication Year Study Details Intervention details Measured Outcomes Main findings
A. Lifestyle/ Chronic disease risk (n = 7)
Liu Z et al [22].,
China,
2015
Type: Clustered RCT
Participant: 589 staff of hospital health management centre
Company size: Not provided
Length:12-month intervention
Goal/Focus: Reduce overall CVD (cardiovascular disease) risk
Mode of Delivery
Intervention Group (IG): receive mobile phone-based lifestyle intervention including an individualised electronic prescription, follow-up 5 to 8 min phone calls and text messages targeting reducing CVD risk during the 12-month intervention.
Control Group (CG): receive usual medical examination without follow-up calls and text messages.
No theory applied.
Primary outcome: Change in 10-year CVD risk between baseline and follow-up point at 12-months, Change in components of risk score
Secondary outcome: Diastolic blood pressure (BP), triglycerides (TG), high-density lipoprotein (HDL), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), waist hip ratio (WHR)
Significant difference between baseline and 12-month in CG:
1.Increased mean CVD risk, Systolic BP (p<0.001), DBP mean value (p< 0.001)
2.Decreased HDL and LDL (p<0.05), overall Diastolic BP, FPG and WHR (p<0.001)
Significant different between baseline and 12-months in IG: Decreased 10-year CVD risk (Systolic BP, TC, BMI) (p<0.05), DBP mean value (p<0.001), HDL and LDL (p<0.05)
Mobile phone-based intervention may therefore be a potential solution for reducing CVD risk in China.
Jorvand R at al. [30],
Iran,
2020
Type: Quasi-experiment
Participants: 114 healthcare workers employed in two cities
Company Size: 262 healthcare workers from two cities assessed for eligibility
Length: 2-week intervention with 6-month follow-up
Goal/Focus: Effect of Health Belief Model (HBM)-based education on exercise
Mode of delivery
IG: Workers from one network received a Telegram-based intervention and supervised exercises, receiving education packages every 2 weeks and exercise reminder messaging, discussion and interlocution and their own exercise pictures sharing.
CG: workers from the other network received uncontrolled individual exercise and self-reported.
Underlying theory: HBM
Primary outcome:
1.HBM (perceived susceptibility, severity, benefits, barriers, and self-efficacy)
2.Exercise (daily and weekly in minutes)
Secondary outcome: blood biochemical markers
Significant difference of HBM constructs mean score at pre and post intervention in IG:
1.Increased perceived severity (p = 0.000), perceived benefits (p = 0.010) and self-efficacy (p = 0.024)
2.Decreased perceived susceptibility (p = 0.018): directly related to increased preventive behaviours (doing exercise for CVDs)
Significant improvements of exercise in IG:
Daily exercise at post intervention (p = 0.001)
Weekly exercise at pre and post intervention (p = 0.001)
Educational interventions based-on Telegram messenger using HBM can improve exercise level.
Ramachandran A et al. [33],
India,
2013
Type: Prospective RCT
Participant: 537 male employees in public and private industrial units
Company size: Not provided, 8741 for eligibility screening
Length: 24-month intervention with follow-up
Goal/Focus: Effect of phone messages on lifestyle change (PA and diet) to reduce Type 2 diabetes (T2D)
Mode of delivery
IG: Frequent mobile phone messages about healthy lifestyle, (the benefits, cues to start, ways to avoid relapse and remain motivated in physical activity (PA) and healthy dietary habits)
CG: standard lifestyle modification advice at baseline only
Underlying theory: Transtheoretical Model of Behavioural Change
Primary: Incidence of T2D
Secondary: body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, systolic and diastolic BP, lipid profile, total dietary energy intake, PA score, acceptability of mobile phone messaging assessed by questionnaire
50 (18%) men in the IG developed T2D over the 2 years compared with 73 (27%) CG (absolute risk reduction 9%)
The intervention reduced the incidence of T2D during the study (β –0·447). The number needed to treat to prevent one case of T2D was 11 (95% CI 6–55).
Mobile phone messaging is an effective and acceptable method to deliver advice and support towards lifestyle modification to prevent T2D in men at high risk.
Nurgul K et al. [36],
Turkey,
2015
Type: Descriptive and quasi experimental study
Participant: 30 Female staff from Sakarya University
Company Size:
Sakarya University (44 staff voluntary participation)
Length: 3-month intervention without follow-up
Goal/Focus: Effect of web-based education on health knowledge and behaviour
Mode of delivery
IG: 3-month web-supported health training material in ppt or audio-visual (3 modules: nutrition and health, PA, damages of smoking and stress management), available 7 days a week and 24 hours a day.
No CG or theory applied.
Primary outcome:
1.Knowledge on health promotion: assessed by multiple choice questionnaire (MCQ)
Individual’s health behaviours: assessed via 52-item health promotion lifestyle profile (HPLSP) with 6 sub-dimensions (Health Responsibility, PA, Nutrition, Self-actualization, Interpersonal support, stress management)
Significant difference (p<0.05) between pre and post intervention
1.HPLSP total points (p = 0.001)
2.HPLSP sub-scale total points (p = 0.001)
3.MCQ (p<0.001)
Web-based health education had a positive effect on healthy lifestyle behaviours of women staff working at Sakarya University and on their knowledge of health protection.
Rubinstein A et al. [38],
Argentina, Guatemala, and Peru,
2016
Type: Parallel RCT
Participant: 637 adults with prehypertension from workplaces, health care, and community centres
Company size: Not provided, 2630 for eligibility screening
Length: 12-month intervention with 6-month follow-up
Goal/Focus: Effect of mHealth on cardiometabolic profile in prehypertension people
Mode of delivery
IG: Received monthly motivational counselling calls and weekly personalised messages about diet quality and PA.
CG: Received usual care
Underlying theory: Transtheoretical Model of Behavioural Change and the Health Belief Model
Primary outcome: Change in Systolic BP (mmHg) and Diastolic BP (mmHg)
Secondary outcome: Change in weight (kg), BMI (kg/m2), WC (cm), PA (metabolic equivalent of task (METs)/ min per week), daily intake of fruits and vegetables (F&V), high fat and sugar foods
Significant changes in highly engaged participants (received ≥75% of counselling calls in IG): Body weight (-4∙85kg), WC (-3∙31cm), Daily intake of F&V (+0.66), Daily intake of high-sodium foods (-0.42), Daily intake of high fats food (-1.52)
Significant difference between IG and CG by country:
1.Body weight in Peru (IG): -1.24kg
2.Daily F&V intake in Peru (IG): +0.64
3.Daily F&V intake in Guatemala (IG): +0.04
The mHealth-based intervention was associated with a small reduction in bodyweight and some dietary habits. A dose-response effect signalling potential opportunities for larger effects from similar interventions in low-resource settings was seen.
Martinez C et al. [39],
Bolivia,
Guatemala
and
Paraguay,
2018
Type: Pre-post study
Participant: 202 hospital workers from three organisations
Company size: 1450 workers in three organization
Length: 6-month intervention with follow-up
Goal/Focus: Effect of online training in smoking behaviour
Mode of delivery
IG: received an adapted version of a 5A’s (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist and Arrange follow-up) training program developed by the online platform e-oncologia based on in-person courses.
No CG or theory applied
Primary outcome: Cognitive and behavioural factors relating to smoking
Secondary outcome: Self-reported performance level according to 5A’s, demographics characteristic and questions suggested by experts to explore behavioural factors
Significant Increase in performance of each of the 5A components (p<0.001)
Significant improvement at post training
1. Performance score of 5A’s (p<0.001)
2. Cognitive, behavioural, and organisational factors affecting 5A’s
  • Five identified barriers (p<0.001): self-reported preparedness, drug preparedness, competency in assisting smokers to quit, using additional resources, and having positive experience.
  • Opportunities with score ≥7 (p<0.001): motivation to help patients to quit, importance of smoking cessation in job, seeking frequently for patients.
Online education on smoking cessation is feasible and effective in improving smoking cessation interventions in these countries.
Joseph-Shehu EM et al. [42],
Nigeria,
2019
Type: Pre-post study
Participant: 22 university staff in Nigeria
Company Size: 1349 staff
Length: 12-week intervention with follow-up
Goal/Focus: Effect of information and communication technology on health promotion
Mode of delivery
IG: Adopted a nurse-client interactive Android phone app, Tertiary Staff Health Promotion App to access health promotion information, to monitor health status, increase PA, minimise sitting hours, with reminder of activities to improve health and quality of life.
CG: N/A
Underlying theory: Health promotion model
Primary outcome:
Health promoting lifestyle behaviour
Health status (BP, BMI, WHR, and fasting blood sugar)
Significant difference between pre- and post-intervention:
Increased nutrition score (p = 0.0001), PA score (p = 0.0001), health responsibility score (p = 0.0001), stress management score (p = 0.001), Interpersonal relation subscales score (p = 0.009)
Decreased BMI (p = 0.038) and diastolic BP (p = 0.04)
The health-promoting lifestyle behaviour and health status of workers and other population groups showed improvements through information and communication technology.
B. Weight management (n = 5)
He C et al. [23],
China,
2017
Type: Cohort study
Participant: 15,310 employees from 134 government agencies and enterprises
Company Size: Not provided, 15818 for eligibility screening
Length: 6-month intervention with 6-month follow-up
Goal/Focus: Effect of WeChat-based multicomponent program on weight loss
IG: Social media-promoted intervention. Participants willing to use the research team’s official WeChat account were enrolled in a WeChat group that provided feedback on weight, diet, and exercise weekly, microvideos and popular science knowledge on weight loss, community area for communication.
CG: Participants not willing to use official WeChat account given routine publicity such as slogan “take the stairs and lose weight” on weight loss
No theory applied.
Primary outcome:
Weight loss: height, weight, waist circumferences before and after intervention
Demographic characteristics: gender, age, educational level, and telephone number online registered with WeChat account
Weight loss: IG (2.09±3.43kg) > CG (1.78±2.96kg)
Effect of WeChat on weight loss (Assessed with propensity method, p<0.05):
1.Males in IG (active or inactive) had higher probability of maintaining weight with 1-2kg or > 2kg weight loss than CG (0-1kg)
2.Active participants in WeChat groups were more likely to lose weight.
The weight loss intervention campaign based on an official WeChat account focused on an occupation-based population in Shunyi District was more effective for males than females.
Yu Y et al. [24],
China,
2018
Type: RCT
Participant: 802 employees from institutions or enterprises from 4 areas, 44.9% overweight & obese, 49.6% normal weight and 0.5% underweight
Company Size: Not provided, 904 for eligibility screening
Length: 3-month intervention
Goal/Focus: Effect of pedometer-based walking and diet guidance on weight management
Mode of delivery
IG: Receive self-monitored intervention trial (exercise prescription and dietary guidance), synchronise pedometer exercise data to the Internet-based Health System Centre daily (at least weekly)
No CG or theory applied
Primary: Changes in body weight (kg) or BMI, waist circumference (cm), and BP (mmHg).
Secondary: Changes in lifestyle behaviour (scores), body fat percentage (%), fasting blood glucose/ fasting serum glucose (mmol/L), and serum lipid (mmol/L)
Normal weight participants:
1. Weight decreased 0.7% (p < 0.01).
2. Body fat percentage decreased 2.5% (p < 0.01).
3. BP and FSG decreased significantly (p<0.05)
Underweight participants:
1. Weight gain of 1.0% (p< 0.05),
Overweight participants:
1. 68.2% (208/305) experienced weight loss, with an average reduction of 3.5%, with 20.2% (42/208) of them achieving weight loss 5%.
2. BP and FSG decreased significantly (p<0.05)
The incidence of hypertension was significantly lower and lifestyle behaviour significantly improved (p < 0.05)
Abdi J et al. [28],
Iran,
2015
Type: Three-arm RCT
Participant: 435 governmental employees with overweight or obesity (BMI>25kgm/m2)
Company Size: Not provided,1200 for eligibility screening
Length: 6-month intervention with 3-month follow-up and maintenance
Goal/Focus: Effect of communication technologies and social-cognitive based education on weight loss
Mode of delivery
Two IG received lifestyle program and general brochures:
IG1 (Web-assisted group): educational content provided on a website.
IG2 (Telephone-assisted group): educational content provided through SMS every two weeks
CG: only receive general brochures about lifestyle and overweight
Underlying theory: Social cognitive theory (SCT)
Primary: anthropometric measures include weight (kg), waist circumference (cm) and blood pressure (mmHg)
Secondary: SCT measures
The lifestyle intervention resulted in a weight loss of: -1.08 kg in IG1, -1.92kg in IG2
IG1: mean scores of the constructs of self-efficacy (P = 0.001) and outcome expectancies (P = 0.020) increased.
IG2: mean scores of the constructs of self-efficacy (P = 0.001), environment (P = 0.001), outcome expectations (P = 0.040), and outcome expectancies (P = 0.001) increased.
A significant difference (P = 0.03) was observed in weight loss among the groups over the course of time.
Limaye T at al. [34],
India,
2017
Type: RCT
Participant: 265 young Indians of IT industry with normoglycemia and at high risk of developing diabetes.
Company Size: Not provided, 437 for eligibility screening
Length: 1-year intervention
Goal/Focus: Effect of technology-based lifestyle program on reducing T2D risk
IG: Receive lifestyle modification in Informative technology (LMIT) program
1. Mobile phone messages and emails with infographics which contain lifestyle modification information provided. No message was repeated.
2. Additional support through a website and a closed Facebook group.
CG: no intervention received
Underlying theory: goal setting
Primary outcome: prevalence of overweight/obesity (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2)
Secondary outcomes: Change in weight, waist circumference, blood pressure, glucose, lipid, lifestyle choices, diabetes awareness score, acceptability, and cost-effectiveness of the intervention
Significant weight loss in IG (p<0.05): Overweight/obese participants decreased from 104 (78.2%) to 96 (72.2%)
Significant weight gain in CG (p<0.05): Overweight/obese participants increased from 101 (76.5%) to 110 (83.3%)
The number needed to treat/prevent one case of overweight/obesity in 1 year was 9.
A virtual assistance-based lifestyle intervention was effective, cost-effective and acceptable in reducing risk factors for diabetes in young employees in the IT industry and is potentially scalable.
Beleigoli A et al. [41],
Brazil,
2020
Type: Three-arm parallel RCT
Participant: 1,298 overweight and obese students and staff of a Brazilian university
Company Size: Not provided, 3745 for eligibility screening
Length: 24-week intervention
Goal/Focus: Effect of personalized web-based coaching on weight loss with overweight and obese people
Mode of delivery
Platform-only group (IG1): received reminder emails to report weight and habits at 12 and 24 weeks after baseline trial and get access to 24-week web-based weight loss program with personalised computer-delivered feedback.
Platform and coaching group (IG2): received 24-week web-based weight loss program with 12-week personalised dietician-delivered feedback.
CG (waitlist): received a non-personalized minimal intervention based on dietary and PA recommendations delivered through downloadable e-booklet and four 5-min videos.
Underlying theory: Behaviour Change Wheel
Primary outcome: changes in weight and BMI
Secondary outcome:
1.Changes in dietary intake: assessed by the daily F&V portions, weekly consumption of sweetened beverages and ultra-processed foods
2.Changes in PA: Moderate and vigorous PA was assessed by the Brief PA Assessment Questionnaire.
After 24-week intervention:
1.Primary outcome (Weight & BMI change)
  • CG: Weight = -0.66kg, BMI = -0.24kg
  • IG1: Weight = -1.08kg, BMI = -0.38kg
  • IG2: Weight = -1.57kg, BMI = -0.56kg
  • Significant overall weight loss (p = 0.001): IG1 (83/420, 19.8%) and IG2 (64/408, 15.7%) > CG (61/270, 13.0%)
2.Secondary outcome:
  • Significant increase in F&V consumption (p = 0.001): IG1 and IG2 > CG
  • Significant reduction in ultra-processed food consumption (p = 0.005): IG1 and IG2 > CG
  • Significant increase in sweetened beverage consumption (p = 0.02): IG1> IG2
C. Physical activity (PA) (n = 4)
Blake H et al. [25],
China,
2019
Type: Two-arm clustered RCT
Participant: 282 employees of IT private sector organizations in Beijing and Gaungzhou
Company size: 690 employees from two sites
Length:12-week intervention without follow-up
Goal/Focus: Effect of digital video-based exercise on PA and work performance
Mode of delivery
IG (Guangzhou): “Move-It” digital video-based worksite exercise intervention
1. Move-It website: Six 10-min Qigong exercise video clips, twice/day on working day
2. Reminder messages: The Move-it desktop icon popped up at the same time, twice/day
3. Exercise adherence info: Daily exercise logs were collected through Move-it icon
CG (Beijing, wait-list): received the same intervention after the intervention period
Underlying theory: Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs)
PA level, weekday sitting hours and work performance Significant differences at post intervention:
1.Increased PA:
  • IG (5.80 hrs/week, p = 0.04)
  • CG (7.41 hrs/week, p = 0.00)
2.Work performance:
  • Increased in CG (+0.69 units, p = 0.01)
  • Reduced in IG (−0.03 units, p = 0.78)
3.Increased sitting hours:
I  • G (+10.34 hrs/week, p = 0.00)
  • CG (+5.68 hrs/week, p = 0.00)
  • Between groups (−4.66 h/w, p<0.01)
The intervention did not result in greater changes in the IG than in CG. Many participants perceived the Qigong exercises positively and reported positive benefits on physical and mental health including muscle relaxation, stress reduction and improved working mood.
Gu M et al. [26],
China,
2020
Type: Quasi-experiment with self-controlled design
Participant: 262 workers from 17 worksites
Company Size: Not provided, 398 employees participated in study baseline
Length: 100-day intervention with follow-up
Goal/Focus: Effect of pedometer and WeChat-based group program on PA and health-related outcome
Mode of delivery
IG: a pedometer- and group-based intervention program with 10–20 participants each in 47 groups.
1.Pedometer: to monitor the PA during waking hours and upload the data to a specific website.
2.We-Chat group: created by each group captain to share daily steps number, communicate, and motivate the participants to achieve the corresponding goals.
CG: required to complete the measures and no intervention applied.
Underlying theory: SCT
Primary outcome:
1.PA
2.Health related outcome: height (cm), weight (kg), Body Fat % (BF%), systolic diastolic BP, waist and hip circumference, BMI
Secondary outcome: Job demand and control which measured based on Karasek’s Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ)
Baseline
Significant difference between IG and CG (p<0.05): Waist and hip circumferences, BMI
Post intervention
  • Walking increased about 22% compared with baseline vigorous PA
  • Significant increase in vigorous PA (p = 0.048) and walking (p<0.01) in IG
  • Significant reduction in moderate PA in both IG (p<0.01) and CG (p<0.01)
  • Significant reduction in health-related outcomes at post intervention (p<0.05) in IG: systolic BP, waist and hip circumferences, body fat and BMI
Significant association between:
1.Gender and WHR (p<0.001): females showed larger decrease WHR
2.Age and BF% (p = 0025): age increased; BF% decreased
3.Age (p<0.027) and difference in METs for vigorous PA (p<0.001) with BF%: older and higher difference showed larger decreased BF%
4. Vigorous PA and BMI (p = 0.013): higher difference, larger decreased BMI
Pillay JD et al. [40],
South Africa,
2014
Type: Pilot study
Participant: 22 Staff members of the Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town
Company Size: Not provided, 25 employees agreed to join
Length: 10-week intervention with 2-week follow-up
Goal/Focus: Effect of pedometer-based program on PA level
Mode of delivery
IG: Received biweekly individual email feedback, motivational messages, and strategies to increase PA based on electronic receipt of pedometer data.
CG: Received general motivational message biweekly without pedometer feedback
Underlying theory: Theoretical model of behavioural change
Primary outcome:1.
Participants’ perceptions: false, appeal, support and benefits of the intervention assessed through questionnaire during follow-up period.
Secondary outcome:
1.PA level = measured at baseline and follow-up
  • Steps per day: recorded by pedometer
Biometric and clinical measure, including waist circumferences (cm), body fat (%), BMI (kg/m2), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)
IG at 2-week follow up period after intervention:
1.Average daily aerobic steps: decreased (-54±2746 steps)
2.Daily aerobic time (min): Increased (+0.9±23.0)
3.Daily steps: increased (+996±1748 steps)
CG at 2-week follow up period after intervention:
1.Daily steps: increased (+97±750 steps)
This pilot study provides useful information on the potential for PA improvements through pedometry in an employed, adult group.
Ganesan A et al. [44],
Asia (India), Europe, Africa, North America, South America, Australia, and New Zealand,
2016
Type: Prospective cohort study
Participant: 26,562 Indian employees from private and public sector organizations
Company Size: Not provided, 69,219 employees completed pre-event questionnaire
Length:100-day intervention annual program without follow-up
Goal/Focus: Effect of mHealth on PA, sitting and weight
Mode of delivery
IG: Stepathlon workplace-based pedometer program
1.Pedometer: for step count challenge.
2.Stepathlon website (desktop and mobile version): provides personalized tools, educational content, and online community platform.
3.Daily encouraging emails: PA and nutrition messages, entertaining quizzes, and competitions to encourage online interface interaction
No CG or theory applied.
PA measures:
Change in step count, sitting duration and weight (kg)
Post program showed significant improvements (p<0.0001) in:
1.Recorded step count (+3,519 steps/day)
2.Exercise days (+0.89 days)
3.Sitting duration (-0.74 h)
4.Weight loss (-1.45 kg)
Improvements occurred in women and men, in all geographic regions, and in both high and lower-middle income countries.
D. Job Performance (n = 2)
Guo YF et al. [27],
China,
2020,
Type: RCT
Participant: 73 clinical nurses from Chinese tertiary general hospital
Company Size: 197 nurses
Length: 6-month intervention without follow-up
Goal/Focus: Effect of WeChat-based psychotherapy on job performance and self-efficacy of people suffering burnout.
Mode of delivery
IG: WeChat-based 3GT-positive psychotherapy.
1.WeChat: to record three good things that were impressive each day and answer 2 questions: “Why did these good things happen?” and “What was your role in bringing them about?” in their WeChat circle
2.Reminder messages for recording 3 good things: sent to all the nurses at 8 pm by the researcher to remind them to increase the adherence of 3GT
CG: No intervention received
Underlying theory: Self Efficacy
Primary outcome: job performance measured by a 16-item scale
Second outcome: Self-efficacy was measured by the 10-item GSS
Tertiary outcome: burnout was measured by MBI-GS
Significant main intervention effect (p<0.05) and interactions (p<0.05) in both IG and CG on job performance and self-efficacy.
Significant difference (p<0.05) between post-intervention scores for job performance and self-efficacy between IG and CG.
Significant difference (p<0.05) between scores for job performance and self-efficacy of the IG before and after.
Three Good Things are recommended to be included into the management systems to improve nurses’ physical and mental health and work outcomes over the long term.
Sasaki N et al. [43],
Vietnam,
2021
Type: Three-arm RCT
Participant: 951 nurses from national public tertiary hospital
Company Size: 1256 nurses
Length: 7-month intervention with follow-up
Goal/Focus: Effect of phone-based stress management program on work engagement
Mode of delivery
IG: Two 6-module CBT programs using ABC Stress Management app. Program A with free-choice multi-module, Program B with fixed-sequential order multi-module, both receive weekly messages and access to informal group chat (via social media apps such as Vober, Zalo, FB messenger) to receive intensive technical support
CG (waitlist):
1.Free to use any other mental health services as usual treatment during the intervention period.
2.Received intervention after the 7-month intervention period
No theory applied.
Work engagement scores Work engagement scores in both IG: Increased from baseline to 3-month follow-up but decreased at the 7-month follow-up
At 3-month follow-up:
1.Program A showed a non-significant trend (P = 0.07) toward improved engagement.
2.Program B showed a significant intervention effect on improving work engagement (P = 0.049) with a small effect size.
7-month follow up: neither program achieved effectiveness.
A fixed order (program B) delivery of a smartphone-based stress management program improving work engagement in nurses in Vietnam effectively but with temporary and small effect.
E. Other health outcome such as stress (n = 3), sleep (n = 2), ergonomic condition (n = 1)
Aliakbari R et al. [29],
Iran,
2020
Type: Quasi-experimental study
Participant: 63 general dentists and dental specialists in Bojnourd city
Company Size: 90 general dentists
Length: 3-month intervention without follow-up
Goal/Focus: Effect of digital-based education to improve occupational health and ergonomic condition
Mode of delivery
IG: educational intervention developed based on predictive constructs using modern media.
Messages: Receive 1–2 per day for a month about changing behaviour, share knowledge in a Telegram group to improve musculoskeletal conditions, and receive access to online educational material
CG: received software package consisting of several applications, articles and corrective trainings as IG but not involved in Telegram group.
Underlying theory: Theory of Planned Behaviour
Primary outcome: evaluated by a questionnaire about
1.Health condition: personal info, daily activities, and exercise
2.Knowledge and constructs of behavioural intention model
Ergonomics condition: measured by Nordic questionnaire and Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA)
Significant difference of mean scores of constructs between IG and CG at pre-intervention: Perceived control (p = 0.04)
Significant difference of mean scores of constructs in IG at post-intervention: Attitude score (p = 0.03)
Subjective norms, perceived control, attitude, and behavioural intention had the highest predictive power in improving the health and ergonomic position of dentists, respectively.
Nourian M et al. [31],
Iran,
2021
Type: RCT
Participant: 41 nurses working in 2 COVID-19 care wards in hospital.
Company Size: 44 nurses in 2 COVID-19 care wards
Length: 7-week intervention
Goal/Focus: Effect of WhatsApp-based training program on sleep quality
Mode of delivery
IG: Mindfulness-based stress reduction training program via WhatsApp group. Training content included educational media files of mediation, yoga exercise, speeches delivered by professionals
CG: completed 2 questionnaires on Porsline website, received music and training file without WhatsApp application.
No theory applied.
Sleep quality measured by Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index tool (Score of 5 or higher indicates poor sleep quality) Significant improvement on sleep quality score in IG: Subjective sleep quality (p<0.05), Sleep latency (p<0.05), Habitual sleep efficiency (p<0.05)
Significant improvement on sleep quality score in CG: Subjective sleep quality (p<0.05), Daytime drowsiness (p<0.05), Total sleep quality score (p = 0.001)
Significant difference on sleep quality score between IG and CG: Sleep latency (p<0.05), Subjective sleep quality (p<0.001)
The total sleep quality did not change among the participants in the IG at pre- and post-intervention but increased significantly in the CG. The MBSR program may be effective in improving the sleep quality of nurses.
Pendse et al. [32],
India,
2012
Type: Pilot study with part 1 (P1) survey and part 2 (P2) intervention
Participant: Service sector employees: 81 (P1) and 10 (P2)
Company Size: Not provided
Length: 2-week intervention without follow-up
Goal/Focus: Effect of web-based intervention on work life quality and mental well-being
Mode of delivery
IG: receive two 20–40 seconds stimuli in the forms of pictures, videos, and text through official emails every day for 10 working days.
CG: No intervention received
Underlying theory: Influential theory
Questionnaire in P1: measure career and job satisfaction, perceived absence of work stress
Questionnaire in P2: measure affect balance and emotion/worry
Happiness positively and significantly related to
1.Quality of Work Life (R = 0.378, P<0.01)
2.Resilience (R = 0.365, P<0.05)
CG on affect balance significantly lower than the gain scores of IG (U = 14, P<0.05)
Web-based interventions show promise for enhancing employee’s’ happiness but this study was limited by there’s limitation on small sample size
Divya K et al. [35],
India,
2021
Type: Pilot study with single arm pre-post design
Participant: 92 healthcare providers (HCPs)
Company Size: 7597 HCPs from different states
Length: 40-day intervention with follow-up
Goal/Focus: Effect of online video-based education on mental wellbeing
Mode of delivery
IG: received a 4-day online breath and meditation workshop, Sudarshan Kriya Yoga (SKY) delivered by trained instructors with a 2-hour session/ day through video conference. Participants also learnt the 35-min home practice, including Pranayama, Bhastrika and SKY breathing to be practised at home daily.
No CG or theory applied.
Primary outcome:
1.Depression and Anxiety: measured by self-reported Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21).
2.Sleep Quality: measured by Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI).
3.Resilience: measured by self-rated Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale.
Life satisfaction: measured by a 5-item Satisfaction with Life Scale.
Significant differences in the scale scores:
1.Depression, anxiety, and stress: reduced scores for all at post-intervention (p<0.001)
2.Resilience: Increased resilience at post-intervention (p<0.001) and greater increase at follow-up phase (p = 0.015).
3.Life satisfaction: increased life satisfaction at post-intervention (p<0.001) and greater increase at follow-up phase (p< 0.001).
4.Quality of sleep: reduced scores immediately after the program (p<0.001)
SKY breathing technique had a positive impact on the well-being of healthcare professionals during the pandemic. Participants experienced improved quality of sleep, enhanced satisfaction with life, and increased resilience after SKY.
Dincer B and Inangil D [37],
Turkey,
2021
Type: RCT
Participant: 72 nurses caring for COVID-19 patients in a university hospital
Company Size: Not provided, 80 nurses met criteria
Length: Not provided, without follow-up
Goal/Focus: Effect of online group emotional freedom techniques (EFT) treatment on reducing stress, anxiety, and burnout level
Mode of delivery
IG: received a 20-mins guided online group EFT treatment by showing the participants a picture of the acupressure points and ways to apply pressure tap.
CG: no EFT treatment received between the completion of 2 subjective units of distress (SUD) and burnout tests.
No theory applied.
Primary outcome:
1.Stress levels: measured by SUD scale
2.Anxiety levels: measure the State Anxiety Scale
3.Burnout levels: measured by a 21-item Burnout Scale
Significant differences in IG at post intervention (p < .001):
1. Stress levels: Reduced mean SUD score
2.Anxiety levels Reduced anxiety score
3.Burnout levels: Reduced burnout score
CG showed no statistically significant changes on these measures (p > .05)
Montagni I et al. [45],
China, France, Spain, UK,
2019
Type: Pilot study
Participant: 291 employees (T1) of eight company sites in four countries
Company Size: Not provided, 834 employees in (T0)
Length: Two phase (T0 and T1) intervention of 5 days each. Follow-up (T1) after 6 months
Goal/Focus: Effect of blended tablet-based survey to raise sleep awareness
Mode of delivery
IG: asked to use WarmUapp tablet application which consist of 27 screens (23 screens for questions, 3 screens for partial survey answers, 1 screen for survey results and personalised recommendations to improve sleep quality)
No CG or theory applied
Primary outcome:
1.Change in sleep status which measured total sleep duration, sleep efficiency, sleep debt, insomnia, sleepiness
2.WarnUappTM effectiveness: measured user satisfaction, feedbacks and ideas through structured interview composed of 3 open-ended questions
Significant difference in sleep status at post intervention (follow-up phase):
1.Increased total sleep duration (p = 0.046)
2.Decreased sleep debt (p = 0.019), sleep difficulties between two phases (p<0.001), sleepiness (p = 0.026)
3.Sleep problem: females 2 times more likely to suffer in both phases (p = 0.006)
Satisfaction with WarnUappTM: All interviewees were satisfied of the intervention
Interventions blending face-to-face and web-based approaches show promise for effective promotion of sleep awareness at the workplace.

Results

Study selection and characteristics

Our database search identified a total of 10,298 studies. Fig 1 illustrates the PRISMA flow chart of the article selection process. After removing the 4266 duplicates from the imported studies and screening 6032 studies at the title or abstract level, we found 46 full text articles which were potentially relevant. Eventually, 24 studies were included in the current review after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Fig 1. PRISMA flow chart of study selection process including reasons for excluded studies.

Fig 1

A summary of the main characteristics of the included studies is provided in Table 2. All the studies were published between the years 2012 and 2021 (Fig 2). The study designs included randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 12), quasi-experimental (n = 4), pilot studies (n = 4), pre-post studies (n = 2) and cohort studies (n = 2). Six studies were conducted in China [2227], four in Iran [2831], four in India [3235], two in Turkey [36, 37], two in Latin America [38, 39], one in South Africa [40], one in Brazil [41], one in Nigeria [42], and one in Vietnam [43]. Two studies were conducted in multiple countries [44, 45]: Ganesan A et al (2016) was conducted in LMICs in Asia and 90% of the total participants were from India and Montagni et al (2019) involved participants from China, France, Spain and the UK. For these studies including participants from both LMICs and high-income countries, results could not be separated by country, so the pooled results are presented in this review. Workplace settings included academic institutions [36, 4042], hospitals or academic hospitals [22, 27, 31, 37, 39, 43], healthcare facilities [29, 30, 35], IT companies [25, 34], industrial units [33], and service companies [32]. Seven studies targeted public and private sector organisations from multiple worksites [23, 24, 26, 28, 38, 44, 45].

Table 2. Tabulated results of included studies.

Total N
Country Asia (China, Iran, India, Turkey, Vietnam) 17
South America (Bolivia, Guatemala, Paraguay, Argentina, Guatemala, Peru, Brazil) 3
Africa (South Africa, Nigeria) 2
Multiple continents 2
Study Design RCT 12
Quasi-experiment 4
Pilot 4
Pre-post 2
Cohort 2
Study Setting Mixed 5
Hospital and healthcare 9
Industrial and Manufacturing 1
Office 5
University 4
Study Size <100 9
100–1000 12
>1000 3
Population target Normal 17
At risk group (Overweight and obese, hypertension, stress etc.) 7
Gender All 22
Male-only 1
Female-only 1
Underlying theory Transtheoretical Model of Behaviour Change 3
Social Cognitive Theory 2
Health Belief Model 2
Other theories 5
Not reported 11
Goal/ Behaviour Targeted Lifestyle / Chronic disease risk 7
Weight Management 6
Physical Activity 4
Job Performance 3
Stress and sleep 5
Intervention length <3 months 6
3–12 months 14
>12 months 1
Primary Outcome Statistically significant improvement 22
Non-significant 2

Fig 2. Distribution of articles by year of publication.

Fig 2

Theoretical frameworks

Some of the included studies drew on theoretical frameworks in their design or analysis. Three studies reported that their interventions drew on the Transtheoretical Model of Behaviour Change (n = 3) [33, 38, 40], with two [38, 40] used motivational messages and calls, and the other [33] providing health information. Two studies were based on Social Cognitive Theory (n = 2), with one [28] involving education/training, and the other [26] used a WeChat group for motivation and progress reporting. Two used the Health Belief Model (n = 2), with one [30] involving education material and the other [38] involving motivational calls and personal text messages. One study adopted the Theory of Planned Behaviour [29] with education training, messaging and knowledge sharing in a Telegram group. Another used Behaviour Change Techniques [25] with coaching and pedometer-generated personalised feedback. Another used Self Efficacy [27] while asking participants to post 3 good things every day. One study used Goal Setting [34] and provided health information through phone messages and emails. Another study drew on the Behaviour Change Wheel [41] and involved coaching and pedometer-generated personalised feedback. Another study used Influential Theory [32] and involved pictures, videos, and text messages on positive emotions. Eleven studies mentioned no clear theoretical basis [22, 24, 31, 35, 37, 39, 4345].

Participant characteristics

The study sample sizes ranged from 41 in an RCT [31] to 26,562 in a prospective cohort study [44]. Of the 24 studies, two studies targeted single-gender participants: all male employees in the industrial sector [33] and all female staff working at a university [36], while all other studies involved participants of both genders. Overall, the proportion of females was higher than males, with 15 of 24 studies having ≥50% female participants. Employees’ participation in all studies was voluntary and neither incentives nor monetary compensation were specified in any study. Thus, the drop-out rate for one of the studies was as high as 47% from baseline participation [44]. Ganesan et al (2016) used a competition method among countries and that may have motivated participants to complete the intervention. Most studies employed inclusion criteria that required participants to be adult employees above the age of 18 years. The study by Beleigoli et al. (2020) included both staff and students at a university and, though studies of students did not meet the inclusion criteria for this review, the pooled results are presented here as it was not possible to separate the results for staff only. Table 3 shows the study characteristics and main findings of the included papers. Supplementary materials are available to provide more details on the studies included.

Target population

17 studies targeted general employees without any health condition and seven targeted the at-risk population. Four articles employed a weight management intervention with an overweight or obese population (n = 3) [28, 41, 46] or population intending to lose weight (n = 1) [23]. One article included employees having prehypertension, one included employees who showed high stress symptoms, and one included employees with a family history of risk factors of metabolic diseases. Of the 24 articles, two targeted at male-only [33] and female-only [36] population, the remaining included both genders.

Intervention and study characteristics

Duration of intervention and follow-up

The duration of intervention delivery varied, ranging from 2 weeks to 2 years, with six studies running from 1 to 10 weeks, six lasting for 3 months, five studies for 6 months, three studies for 12 months and two studies for 24 months. The two shortest interventions lasted for 10 working days. One [30] involved education and messaging through Telegram, the other [32] provided two 20–40 second stimuli in the form of pictures, videos and text through emails. 11 studies [23, 26, 28, 30, 33, 35, 38, 40, 43, 45] had follow-up periods after the intervention ranging from 2 weeks to 6 months. However, most of the studies did not include a detailed description of their follow-up phase, if any.

Intervention provider

The majority of studies involved interventions provided by the research team. Seven studies included interventions led by both the research team and participants. Of these, one study chose some participants to serve as role models for the remaining participants (using observational learning) while the research team were delivering educational content and consultations [28]. Two studies assigned some participants as leaders to facilitate the interventions and motivate participants to engage [25, 26]. Sasaki et al (2021) included participants in the program development, exploring the cultures and specific stressors in the workplace context. Additionally, Montagni and her team [45] built local teams in each participating country to lead adaptation and implementation of the pilot intervention with instructions from headquarters. For cohort studies which only involved data collection and analysis, one was a collaborative project with 2 universities (intervention provider) [44] and the other collaborated with the district government (intervention provider) [23].

Digital component

The digital components of interventions included: educational content or video demonstrations shared on websites or by SMS, email consultations, telephone counselling, use of a pedometer (piezoelectric accelerometer technology), WeChat and WhatsApp groups (communication mobile applications), and smartphone applications. 10 studies [23, 32, 33, 35, 39, 43, 45] involved a single digital component, whereas 14 studies [22, 24, 31, 34, 40, 41, 43, 44] utilised interventions where more than one digital component was used. For example, Yu Y. et al (2018) used an individualised pedometer-assisted exercise prescription and asked participants to synchronise the data to the Health System Centre daily. Abdi J. et al (2015) used websites and SMS to deliver healthy nutrition and PA information, as well as providing telephone and email consultations every two weeks. Of the 24 studies, 7 studies [24, 25, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45] involved only a digital intervention, while the remaining 16 studies [22, 23, 26, 28, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44] involved both digital and in-person support. For instance, Beleigoli et al (2020) included an online weight loss program and dietitian-delivered personalized feedback.

Control and comparison

A control or comparator group was present in 17 studies [22, 23, 25, 26, 2834, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43]. There were a variety of control and comparison types adopted in the included studies. Three studies [25, 40, 43] adopted a waitlist control design where the control group did the same baseline assessment as the experimental group but were only involved in the same intervention upon the completion of the study. Five studies [26, 27, 32, 34, 37] reported no intervention adopted in the control groups. Among the remaining 9 studies, one [30] received a self-monitored intervention, eight [22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 33, 38, 40] received the usual intervention without a digital component involved or a partial component. For example, Liu et al. (2015) only provided usual medical examinations to the control group without follow-up calls and text messages. Pillay et al. (2014) provided a partial intervention to the control group, sending general motivational email messages without personalised pedometer feedback.

Physical, mental or other health-related measures

All of the studies measured quantitative results, except for one study [42] that used qualitative and quantitative findings to develop an integrated technology-moderated institutional health promotion model. The outcome measures of the interventions were heterogeneous. Sixteen studies [2226, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 38, 42, 44] assessed changes in physical health including PA, diet, and other lifestyle factors. Seven studies [27, 31, 32, 35, 37, 43, 45] measured changes in mental health factors, such as sleep, stress, work engagement and more. One study [29] measured improvements in occupational health and ergonomic conditions. Further details can be found in Table 3.

Effectiveness of interventions

Changes to weight

Five studies reported weight as an outcome and four found that the WWPs had a significant effect on reducing weight. Among the four RCTs finding evidence of effectiveness, weight loss ranged from about 1–2 kilograms, including: web-assisted and telephone-assisted education (-1.08kg, p = 0.001; -1.92kg, p = 0.001) [28], web-based coach-delivered and computer-delivered feedback (-1.57 kg, [95%CI: –1.92 to –1.22], p = 0.001; –1.08kg, [95%CI: –1.41 to –0.75], p = 0.001) [41], phone messages and emails (-1.1kg [95%CI: -1.5 to -0.7], p<0.001) [34], and a pedometer and web-assisted exercise prescription (Males (BMI ≥24kg/m2) = -1.0kg [95%CI: –2.5 to –1.4], p<0.001; Females (BMI ≥24kg/m2) = -1.2kg [95%CI: –1.7 to –0.6], p<0.001]) [24]. One cohort study [23] of social media-based (WeChat) support and consultations found mixed evidence of effectiveness, with results suggesting the intervention was more effective among males and those who were actively engaged in the groups.

Changes to physical activity level

Four articles reported PA as a primary outcome, with three indicating a significant effect. Multiple intervention components were used in two studies. One prospective study [44] involved use of pedometers and a website for education and communication and found significant improvements in the intervention group (+3,519 steps/day; [95%CI: 3,484 to 3,553]; p <0.0001). Another quasi experimental study [26] using pedometers and a social media application (WeChat) for communication found a significant increase in walking from baseline to the end of intervention period (22%, p<0.05). There were two studies involving a single component. One RCT [25] that included online exercise videos led to a significant increase in PA (+5.8hrs/week, p = 0.04). One pilot study [40] that included a pedometer and motivational emails didn’t not show a statistically significant improvement in steps between groups (IG = +996±1748 steps/day, CG = +97±750 steps/day).

Changes to lifestyle beliefs, knowledge, behaviors, or chronic disease risk

Seven studies reported lifestyle-related belief, knowledge, or behavioral outcomes or chronic disease risk as an outcome, with six indicating that WWP had a significant effect [22, 30, 32, 36, 39, 42]. For example, Liu, et al found a significant decrease in 10-year risk of CVD between the control and intervention groups in a cluster RCT ([95%CI: -4.47 to -1.18], p = 0.001) [22] and Ramachandran et al found a significantly lower incidence of type 2 diabetes ([95%CI: 0·45 to 0·92], p = 0·015) [41] in the intervention group. Only one study [38] did not find a statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome of interest (blood pressure) but did find a small reduction in body weight (−4·85kg, [95%CI: –8·21 to −1·48], p<0.05) and waist circumferences (−3·31cm, [95%CI: –5·95 to −0·67], p<0.05) in the intervention group of a parallel RCT.

Changes to job performance

Two studies reported job performance as outcome, with one RCT indicating that the WWP created a significant effect. The RCT [27] using a social media application (WeChat) for positive psychotherapy messages, showed significant improvement in job performance (job contribution: F = 6.425, p = .013; Task performance: F = 29.252, p = .000) and self-efficacy (F = 13.326, p = .000). One RCT [43] with 951 participants which involved an app-based cognitive behavioral therapy and messaging for technical support did not find a statistically significant effect at long term follow-up at 7 months (Program A: 95%CI: –0.11 to 0.12, p = 0.94; Program B: 95%CI:–0.08 to 0.16, p = 0.5).

Changes to other health outcomes, such as stress, sleep and ergonomic condition

Three studies reported stress as outcome and indicated that WWP was effective in reducing stress and burnout level among the employees. A RCT [35] conducted with 92 participants receiving online group yoga teaching showed significant reduction in stress, anxiety and depression level (p<0.001) immediately after the intervention, but not at 40 days (p = 0.49, p = 0.613, p = 0.563). A pilot study [37] conducted with 72 participants receiving online group educational treatment found evidence of reductions in stress, anxiety and depression level (95%CI:−5201 to −389, p<0.001; 95%CI: −35.18 to −29.16, p<0.001; 95%CI:−1.38 to—0.511, p<0.001). A pilot study [32] which assessed 81 participants adopting digital components of videos and email messages had shown significant improvement in quality of work life and resilience (r = 0.378, p<0.01; r = 0.365, p<0.05).

Two studies reported sleep quality as outcome with one of them finding a significant improvement to sleep quality post intervention. A pilot study [45] involving a sleep survey and recommendations delivered by tablet application showed significant effect on sleep awareness, total sleep duration during the weekend (p = 0.046), sleep debt (p = 0.019), sleep difficulties (p<0.001), and sleepiness (p = 0.026). Another RCT [31] using a multicomponent intervention involving both a messaging application (WhatsApp) for education and human support showed statistically significant improvement in other indicators, but not in overall sleep quality.

One quasi experimental study [29] involving a messaging application (Telegram), online education material, and text messages did not find significant improvement in workplace ergonomic condition.

Feasibility and acceptability of interventions

Four studies assessed the feasibility and acceptability of the studies through questionnaires [25, 33, 34, 40] testing acceptability. All of them found that the interventions were feasible and/or acceptable. Blake et al. also identified facilitators to successful implementation, such as organizational support and participating in groups, as well as barriers, such as team leaders not adequately leading the exercise activities and limited space in the offices.

Study quality

This scoping review did not include any formal quality assessment. Many of the studies were RCTs or quasi-experimental studies that aimed to reduce potential sources of bias. However, some of the limitations of the included studies were small sample sizes affecting the generalisability and results, and short study durations, leading to an unknown long-term effect of the intervention.

Excluded or near-miss studies

Throughout the process of final study selection, a total of 22 studies were found to be highly relevant but did not meet certain inclusion criteria. Four of them were conducted in the wrong settings, as they did not take place in LMICs [4750]. Articles were also excluded when the participants were born in LMICs but currently working in high-income countries, for example, one article which was conducted among South Asian (India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh) workers in New York City was excluded. Three studies took place in atypical workplaces excluded from the current review (e.g., sex workers [46, 51], soldiers [52]). Four studies did not report health-related, work-related, or design-related outcomes. Four studies were excluded due to a lack of digital components in their workplace wellness interventions, including one article using a pedometer only for step count recording, but not to promote healthier behaviours [53].

During the screening stage, we found two articles from the same research study, but one was excluded because it was a protocol and therefore did not meet the inclusion criteria [43].

Discussion

Main findings

This scoping review aimed to assess the implementation of digital workplace wellness interventions in LMICs. Many studies were excluded from the review due to the fact that most digital workplace wellness research has been done in developed countries, such as the US and the UK. From this review, we see that digital workplace wellness interventions have been used to address a broad range of health behaviours (physical activity level, smoking cessation, sleep quality, burnout, etc.) in LMICs, but targeting outcomes with the goal of reducing the risk of chronic diseases seem to be most common. No other systematic or scoping reviews focus on the same criteria as our study, and this review therefore can help to further our understanding of digital workplace wellness interventions specifically in LMICs.

The final included 24 articles cover a wide range of interventions and measured outcomes. The content of the interventions varied, yet most of them involved mixed digital components, including websites, educational videos, social media or messaging applications, and phone calls or messages. As the studies showed a high level of heterogeneity in terms of intervention aims, digital components involved, outcomes and measures, it is difficult to compare or discern a clear pattern of effectiveness among the 24 studies.

Of the 24 articles, statistically significant improvements were found in all the studies except for two which found no changes [31, 38]. Therefore, it seems that digital WWPs hold promise for improving outcomes in LMICs, however, it is not possible to discern specific patterns between intervention components and outcomes as all the studies varied in intervention components, study design, duration, target outcomes and so on. For example, the duration of interventions varied greatly. Two studies that did not find statistically significant results had very different durations, one [31] was a 7-week intervention without follow up, and the other [38] was a 12 month intervention with 6 month follow up. The remaining 22 studies included interventions ranging from 2 weeks to 2 years (with or without follow-up) and found statistically significant improvements on the targeted outcomes, suggesting that there was no clear pattern of duration and follow-up for study effectiveness in the current review.

Generally, the studies concluded that digital interventions were well-accepted and feasible for the employees. Based on the findings of the reported studies, digital health interventions are potentially effective and feasible for improving employees’ physical and mental wellbeing. The fact that digital interventions can be low-cost and more easily scalable have made them an attractive approach in low-resource settings. However, these findings are mixed and small in effect size, and long-term effects were not studied.

Comparison with related literature

There are many studies on similar topics that did not fulfil all our inclusion criteria, particularly the criterion that the study should be conducted in an LMIC setting. Nonetheless, it is worth discussing the currently available research on digital workplace wellness in high-income countries to compare our findings. For instance, a systematic review analysed the impact of pure digital health interventions in the workplace in high-income countries [54]. The review found that digital-only interventions can improve health-related outcomes in the workplace. They also found that they were more effective when tightly embedded in the work environment (such as downloading a software onto a work computer) and limited to distinct health behaviours that are regularly performed at work, such as physical activity and eating. On the other hand, more complex health behaviours that extend outside the workplace may require human support as a more effective approach [54]. Another systematic review also assessed mobile health interventions to encourage physical activity in the workplace in high-income countries [55]. It was found that commonly used behaviour change techniques were self-monitoring, feedback, goal-setting, and social comparison. Simultaneously, the main mHealth tools used were wearable activity trackers, smartphone apps, or both. Some studies also utilised text messaging, e-mails, social media groups or websites to deliver motivational messages. Approximately half of the studies found a significant increase in physical activity while 4 out of 10 studies reported significant reduction in sedentary time. The findings from these reviews in high-income settings are consistent with the findings of our review, which show that digital health workplace interventions can be feasible and effective [5456]. Another scoping review [57] that examined the return on investment of WWPs in high-income countries found greater returns in larger companies (>500 employees), however, our scoping review was unable to identify any patterns by company size and many studies did not report this information.

Aside from digital health interventions in workplaces in LMICs, there are many studies examining digital interventions in LMICs, but without the focus on the workplace. One systematic review examined the use of short message service (SMS) interventions for disease prevention in developing countries [58]. The review concluded that, while there are many existing SMS applications for disease prevention, very limited evaluation is done to assess their effectiveness. It was also stated that the majority of the selected studies were from grey literature sources. Implementation barriers that were identified included language, timing of messages, network connection issues, high mobile phone turnover, data privacy and lack of financial incentives [58]. These same barriers might also apply to the implementation of digital workplace wellness interventions in LMICs, but the studies in this review did not discuss these barriers. Another literature review found 53 mHealth studies in LMICs [59]. However, the majority of these studies lacked a theoretical framework and outcome measures. Similar to our findings in workplaces specifically, these reviews suggest that there are small numbers of peer-reviewed studies that examine digital health in LMICs. In both cases, it is important to improve future work on digital health interventions in LMICs through the use of theoretical frameworks in the design of interventions and ensuring that programs are evaluated and measure health outcomes.

Evidence gap

Based on our findings, there is a lack of information and evidence supporting the feasibility and effectiveness of digital health interventions among employees in LMICs. The locations of the studies only covered a few specific countries, mainly in China (n = 4), India (n = 4) and Iran (n = 4). Hence, future research is required as factors such as culture, ethnic groups, and lifestyle habits vary across countries and one successful intervention does not fit all.

Future research directions

There are two implications for future research, based on the findings of this review. First, this review highlighted the relatively small amount of research that has been done on digital workplace wellness interventions in LMICs, demonstrating the need for ongoing research in this area. Second, the review identified that there is no clear consensus on the theoretical frameworks that apply to the development of digital workplace wellness interventions in LMICs, which is likely due to the included studies involving varied approaches to health promotion, which may require different theoretical frameworks. These areas are also in need of future research to further our understanding of the mechanisms of workplace behaviour change and for which health outcomes digital workplace wellness is most effective.

Strengths and limitations

The current review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, including developing a robust search strategy, study selection, data extraction and synthesis. This review covered a broad range of study types involving quantitative and mixed method designs, the use of the most recent digital technologies in the studies, as well as targeting both physical and mental outcomes. One limitation is that the heterogeneous outcomes and incomplete reporting of the studies, affected the level of data synthesis that was possible. Another limitation was that non-peer-reviewed studies were not included, and relevant grey literature could have been missed.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review to explore the nature of existing digital health interventions in workplace settings in LMICs. This scoping review gathered recent evidence of digital workplace wellness programs in LMICs. Based on our findings, there is relatively less evidence found when compared to developed or high-income countries. Positive improvements were found in the employees’ mental and physical well-being with the implementation of digital health interventions, yet the effect of the interventions remain unclear in the LMIC context due to the small number of studies identified. Thus, there is a clear need for new high-quality studies with better reporting of interventions and outcomes to be conducted. Future studies should also adopt the use of theoretical frameworks into the research design, exploring more reliable and sustainable wellness programs to enhance the practice of digital health in the workplace in LMICs.

Supporting information

S1 Table. PRISMA checklist.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Sample search strategy (MEDLINE).

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Detailed data extraction table.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All data is available in existing library databases that we searched. Our methodology is outlined in the article to allow others to reproduce the search.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization, Wolf J., Prüss-Ustün A, Ivanov I., Mugdal S., Corvalán C., et al. Preventing disease through a healthier and safer workplace. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Wipfli H, Zacharias KD, (Nivvy) Hundal N, Shigematsu LMR, Bahl D, Arora M, et al. Workplace wellness programming in low-and middle-income countries: a qualitative study of corporate key informants in Mexico and India. Global Health 2018;14:46. doi: 10.1186/s12992-018-0362-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Baicker K. Do Workplace Wellness Programs Work? JAMA Health Forum 2021;2:e213375. 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.3375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kigozi J, Jowett S, Lewis M, Barton P, Coast J. The Estimation and Inclusion of Presenteeism Costs in Applied Economic Evaluation: A Systematic Review. Value Health 2017;20:496–506. 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kirsten W. Making the Link between Health and Productivity at the Workplace ―A Global Perspective. INDUSTRIAL HEALTH 2010;48:251–5. 10.2486/indhealth.48.251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hertz RP, Unger AN, McDonald M, Lustik MB, Biddulph-Krentar J. The Impact of Obesity on Work Limitations and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in the U.S. Workforce. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine 2004;46:1196–203. 10.1097/01.JOM.0000147222.53729.1E. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Finkelstein EA, DiBonaventura M daCosta, Burgess SM, Hale BC. The Costs of Obesity in the Workplace. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine 2010;52:971–6. 10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181f274d2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kannan H, Thompson S, Bolge SC. Economic and Humanistic Outcomes Associated With Comorbid Type-2 Diabetes, High Cholesterol, and Hypertension Among Individuals Who Are Overweight or Obese. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine 2008;50:542–9. 10.1097/JOM.0b013e31816ed569. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Daley M, Morin CM, LeBlanc M, Grégoire J-P, Savard J. The Economic Burden of Insomnia: Direct and Indirect Costs for Individuals with Insomnia Syndrome, Insomnia Symptoms, and Good Sleepers 2009;32:10. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Stewart WF, Ricci JA, Chee E, Hahn SR, Morganstein D. Cost of Lost Productive Work Time Among US Workers With Depression. JAMA 2003;289:3135–44. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.23.3135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wang F, McDonald T, Champagne LJ, Edington DW. Relationship of Body Mass Index and Physical Activity to Health Care Costs Among Employees: Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2004;46:428–36. doi: 10.1097/01.jom.0000126022.25149.bf [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Merrill RM, Aldana SG, Garrett J, Ross C. Effectiveness of a Workplace Wellness Program for Maintaining Health and Promoting Healthy Behaviors. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine 2011;53:782–7. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e318220c2f4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Patel DN, Lambert EV, da Silva R, Greyling M, Nossel C, Noach A, et al. The Association between Medical Costs and Participation in the Vitality Health Promotion Program among 948,974 Members of a South African Health Insurance Company. Am J Health Promot 2010;24:199–204. 10.4278/090217-QUAN-68R2.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Baicker K, Cutler D, Song Z. Workplace Wellness Programs Can Generate Savings. Health Affairs 2010;29:304–11. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0626 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Beiwinkel T, Eißing T, Telle N-T, Siegmund-Schultze E, Rössler W. Effectiveness of a Web-Based Intervention in Reducing Depression and Sickness Absence: Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res 2017;19:e213. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6546 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mills PR, Kessler RC, Cooper J, Sullivan S. Impact of a Health Promotion Program on Employee Health Risks and Work Productivity. Am J Health Promot 2007;22:45–53. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-22.1.45 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.van Wier MF, Dekkers JC, Bosmans JE, Heymans MW, Hendriksen IJ, Pronk NP, et al. Economic evaluation of a weight control program with e-mail and telephone counseling among overweight employees: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012;9:1–12. 10.1186/1479-5868-9-112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews—JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis—JBI Global Wiki n.d. https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/3283910770/Chapter+11%3A+Scoping+reviews (accessed February 10, 2022).
  • 19.Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:467–73. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Covidence—Better systematic review management. Covidence n.d. https://www.covidence.org/ (accessed February 10, 2022).
  • 21.World Bank Country and Lending Groups–World Bank Data Help Desk n.d. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519 (accessed February 10, 2022).
  • 22.Liu Z, Chen S, Zhang G, Lin A. Mobile Phone-Based Lifestyle Intervention for Reducing Overall Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Guangzhou, China: A Pilot Study. IJERPH 2015;12:15993–6004. doi: 10.3390/ijerph121215037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.He C, Wu S, Zhao Y, Li Z, Zhang Y, Le J, et al. Social Media–Promoted Weight Loss Among an Occupational Population: Cohort Study Using a WeChat Mobile Phone App-Based Campaign. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2017;19. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7861 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Yu Y, Lv Y, Yao B, Duan L, Zhang X, Xie L, et al. A novel prescription pedometer-assisted walking intervention and weight management for Chinese occupational population. PLoS ONE 2018;13. 10.1371/journal.pone.0190848. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Blake H, Lai B, Coman E, Houdmont J, Griffiths A. Move-It: A Cluster-Randomised Digital Worksite Exercise Intervention in China: Outcome and Process Evaluation. IJERPH 2019;16:3451. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16183451 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gu M, Wang Y, Shi Y, Yu J, Xu J, Jia Y, et al. Impact of a group-based intervention program on physical activity and health-related outcomes in worksite settings. BMC Public Health 2020;20:1–11. 10.1186/s12889-020-09036-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Guo Y-F, Lam L, Plummer V, Cross W, Zhang J-P. A WeChat-based “Three Good Things” positive psychotherapy for the improvement of job performance and self-efficacy in nurses with burnout symptoms: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Nursing Management 2020;28:480–7. doi: 10.1111/jonm.12927 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Abdi J, Eftekhar H, Mahmoodi M, Shojayzadeh D, Sadeghi R, Saber M. Effect of the Intervention Based on New Communication Technologies and the Social-Cognitive Theory on the Weight Control of the Employees with Overweight and Obesity. J Res Health Sci 2015;15:256–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Aliakbari R, Vahedian-Shahroodi M, Abusalehi A, Jafari A, Tehrani H. A digital-based education to improve occupational health and ergonomic conditions of dentists: an application of theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Health Promotion and Education 2020;58:268–81. 10.1080/14635240.2019.1687316. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Jorvand R, Ghofranipour F, HaeriMehrizi A, Tavousi M. Evaluating the impact of HBM-based education on exercise among health care workers: the usage of mobile applications in Iran. BMC Public Health 2020;20:1–11. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-08668-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Nourian M, Nikfarid L, Khavari AM, Barati M, Allahgholipour AR. The Impact of an Online Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Program on Sleep Quality of Nurses Working in COVID-19 Care Units: A Clinical Trial. Holistic Nursing Practice 2021;35:257–63. 10.1097/HNP.0000000000000466. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Pendse Maithily, Ruikar Sheetal. The Relation between Happiness, Resilience and Quality of Work Life and Effectiveness of a Web-Based Intervention at Workplace: A Pilot Study. Journal of Psychosocial Research 2013;8:189–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ramachandran A, Snehalatha C, Ram J, Selvam S, Simon M, Nanditha A, et al. Effectiveness of mobile phone messaging in prevention of type 2 diabetes by lifestyle modification in men in India: a prospective, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 2013;1:191–8. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(13)70067-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Limaye T, Kumaran K, Joglekar C, Bhat D, Kulkarni R, Nanivadekar A, et al. Efficacy of a virtual assistance-based lifestyle intervention in reducing risk factors for Type 2 diabetes in young employees in the information technology industry in India: LIMIT, a randomized controlled trial. Diabet Med 2017;34:563–8. 10.1111/dme.13258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Divya K, Bharathi S, Somya R, Darshan MH. Impact of a Yogic Breathing Technique on the Well-Being of Healthcare Professionals During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Glob Adv Health Med 2021;10:216495612098295. doi: 10.1177/2164956120982956 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Nurgul K, Nursan C, Dilek K, Over OT, Sevin A. Effect of Web-supported Health Education on Knowledge of Health and Healthy-living Behaviour of Female Staff in a Turkish University. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention 2015;16:489–94. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.2.489 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Dincer B, Inangil D. The effect of Emotional Freedom Techniques on nurses’ stress, anxiety, and burnout levels during the COVID-19 pandemic: A randomized controlled trial. EXPLORE 2021;17:109–14. doi: 10.1016/j.explore.2020.11.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Rubinstein A, Miranda JJ, Beratarrechea A, Diez-Canseco F, Kanter R, Gutierrez L, et al. Effectiveness of an mHealth intervention to improve the cardiometabolic profile of people with prehypertension in low-resource urban settings in Latin America: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 2016;4:52–63. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00381-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Martínez C, Castellano Y, Company A, Guillen O, Margalef M, Alicia Arrien M, et al. Impact of an online training program in hospital workers’ smoking cessation interventions in Bolivia, Guatemala and Paraguay. Gaceta Sanitaria 2018;32:236–43. doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2017.10.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Pillay JD, Kolbe-Alexander TL, Proper KI, van Mechelen W, Lambert EV. Steps that count! A feasibility study of a pedometer-based, health-promotion intervention in an employed, South African population. South African Journal of Sports Medicine 2014;26:15–9. 10.7196/SAJSM.500. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Beleigoli A, Andrade AQ, Diniz MDF, Ribeiro AL. Personalized Web-Based Weight Loss Behavior Change Program With and Without Dietitian Online Coaching for Adults With Overweight and Obesity: Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res 2020;22:e17494. 10.2196/17494. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Joseph-Shehu EM, Ncama BP, Irinoye O. Developing and Pilot Testing an Integrated Technology–Moderated Institutional Health Promotion Model Using Operational Research Approach. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing 2019;37:532–40. doi: 10.1097/CIN.0000000000000556 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Sasaki N, Imamura K, Tran TTT, Nguyen HT, Kuribayashi K, Sakuraya A, et al. Effects of Smartphone-Based Stress Management on Improving Work Engagement Among Nurses in Vietnam: Secondary Analysis of a Three-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2021;23. doi: 10.2196/20445 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ganesan AN, Louise J, Horsfall M, Bilsborough SA, Hendriks J, McGavigan AD, et al. International Mobile-Health Intervention on Physical Activity, Sitting, and Weight. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2016;67:2453–63. 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.03.472. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Montagni I, Dehman A, Yu Z, Martinez MJ, Banner S, Rimbert S, et al. Effectiveness of a Blended Web-Based Intervention to Raise Sleep Awareness at Workplace: The WarmUappTM Pilot Study. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine 2019;61:e253–9. 10.1097/JOM.0000000000001589. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ampt FH, Lim MSC, Agius PA, L’Engle K, Manguro G, Gichuki C, et al. Effect of a mobile phone intervention for female sex workers on unintended pregnancy in Kenya (WHISPER or SHOUT): a cluster-randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Global Health 2020;8:e1534–45. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30389-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Garner SL, Killingsworth E, Bradshaw M, Raj L, Johnson SR, Abijah SP, et al. The impact of simulation education on self-efficacy towards teaching for nurse educators. Int Nurs Rev 2018;65:586–95. doi: 10.1111/inr.12455 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Gany F, Gill P, Baser R, Leng J. Supporting South Asian Taxi Drivers to Exercise through Pedometers (SSTEP) to Decrease Cardiovascular Disease Risk. J Urban Health 2014;91:463–76. doi: 10.1007/s11524-013-9858-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Clement S, Lassman F, Barley E, Evans-Lacko S, Williams P, Yamaguchi S, et al. Mass media interventions for reducing mental health-related stigma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009453.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Wang MP, Suen YN, Li WHC, Lau OS, Lam TH, Chan SSC. Proactive outreach smoking cessation program for Chinese employees in China. Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health 2018;73:67–78. doi: 10.1080/19338244.2017.1308309 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Mimiaga MJ, Thomas B, Biello K, Johnson BE, Swaminathan S, Navakodi P, et al. A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of an Integrated In-person and Mobile Phone Delivered Counseling and Text Messaging Intervention to Reduce HIV Transmission Risk among Male Sex Workers in Chennai, India. AIDS Behav 2017;21:3172–81. doi: 10.1007/s10461-017-1884-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Wesemann U, Kowalski JT, Jacobsen T, Beudt S, Jacobs H, Fehr J, et al. Evaluation of a Technology-Based Adaptive Learning and Prevention Program for Stress Response—A Randomized Controlled Trial. Military Medicine 2016;181:863–71. doi: 10.7205/MILMED-D-15-00100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Abdullah M, Saat NZM, Fauzi NFM, Hui CY, Kamaralzam S. Association between Walking and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in University Employees. J of Medical Sciences 2015;15:105–9. 10.3923/jms.2015.105.109. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Howarth A, Quesada J, Silva J, Judycki S, Mills PR. The impact of digital health interventions on health-related outcomes in the workplace: A systematic review. DIGITAL HEALTH 2018;4:205520761877086. doi: 10.1177/2055207618770861 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Buckingham SA, Williams AJ, Morrissey K, Price L, Harrison J. Mobile health interventions to promote physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour in the workplace: A systematic review. DIGITAL HEALTH 2019;5:205520761983988. doi: 10.1177/2055207619839883 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Schoeppe S, Alley S, Van Lippevelde W, Bray NA, Williams SL, Duncan MJ, et al. Efficacy of interventions that use apps to improve diet, physical activity and sedentary behaviour: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2016;13:127. doi: 10.1186/s12966-016-0454-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Unsal N, Weaver G, Bray J, Bibeau D. A Scoping Review of Economic Evaluations of Workplace Wellness Programs. Public Health Rep 2021;136:671–84. doi: 10.1177/0033354920976557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Déglise C, Suggs LS, Odermatt P. Short Message Service (SMS) Applications for Disease Prevention in Developing Countries. J Med Internet Res 2012;14:e3. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1823 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Chib A, van Velthoven MH, Car J. mHealth Adoption in Low-Resource Environments: A Review of the Use of Mobile Healthcare in Developing Countries. Journal of Health Communication 2015;20:4–34. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2013.864735 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ali A Weinstein

17 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-17661A Scoping Review of Digital Workplace Wellness Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income CountriesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Watterson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

ACADEMIC EDITOR: As the reviewers have stated (see below) this is an important investigation in a needed topic area. However, the article is need of revisions in order to make it acceptable for publication. You have received two in-depth reviews that are clear and offer strong suggestions for ways to improve your paper. I agree with all of the points raised by the reviewers and hope that you take their comments into careful consideration if you decide to undertake a revision of the paper.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 01 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ali A. Weinstein, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that Figure 3 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Overall, this article provides important and much-needed information on employer-sponsored digital workplace interventions in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). I applaud the authors for addressing this gap and conducting a thoughtful and rigorous scoping review of the literature. However, I have several major concerns regarding the Methods and Results. I believe addressing these concerns will make for a more informative, actionable, and relevant article.

MAJOR:

1) The stated goal of the paper was to provide a comprehensive synthesis of current evidence in relation to the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of the digital workplace wellness intervention in the LMICs. However only very basic information is provided on the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of programs. The Results section instead focuses on intervention and design components/qualities rather than findings related to their effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability. Some of the latter elements are discussed in the third paragraph of the Discussion, but the main text Results do not adequately report these findings at a summary level. Information on effectiveness in the main article is largely in the form of a “conclusion” column in Table 2. I have two recommendations to address this concern:

-The Results section would benefit greatly from three high-level summary sections on effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability (e.g., how well interventions worked, which health conditions or behaviors saw the most benefit, which intervention design types realized the most benefits, if information on effectiveness/feasibility/acceptability was mixed or lacking, etc.). I see very little reporting on the feasibility and acceptability of interventions. If it is absent in the underlying studies, please state this.

-S3 provides more informative results on effectiveness than Table 2. I recommend that the authors distill some of the information on statistical significance from S3 into a simplified column in Table 2, at least for the quantitative studies (which comprised all but one of the articles). Presenting the information in a simplified but study-specific column in Table 2 would help overcome the authors’ concern that it is difficult to report summary findings due to the difficulty in comparing or discerning “a clear pattern of effectiveness among the 24 studies.”

2) While the authors opine on the potential merits of digital-based interventions in LMICs, it seems that the limitations of such interventions in LMICs are overlooked. Please incorporate text into the Literature Review and Discussion sections that address this. For example, what are implications regarding generalizability of digital wellness interventions to certain areas of LMICs? Many areas of LMICs have poor access to broadband and electronic devices (e.g., home computers, internet, phone service, equipment cost, etc.). Additionally, I would recommend the authors add information about the size of the companies into their Results, and similarly, incorporate into the Literature Review any existing literature about the effectiveness of digital workplace interventions based on company size. One could imagine that tech-based wellness programs would be more cost-effective and successful for larger companies or those with greater fiscal infrastructure resources to implement the programs. The development and roll-out of digital interventions may require significant effort, finances, and resources that are not available to many employers in LMICs.

3) In general, the inclusion/exclusion criteria need to be more specific. Some of the information is presented in the Results, but the article would benefit from clarifying these inclusion/exclusion criteria in the Methods and in Table 1. For example, please address the following questions.

-It appears from the Results section (Study Characteristics) that pilot studies were included. Please clarify this in the Methods. This is important because the Table 1 exclusion criteria (“Protocols and study designs”) might imply that pilot studies were excluded, whereas the inclusion criteria of “design-related outcomes” and “feasibility” measures might imply that they were included.

-It appears from the Results section that interventions did not have to be employer-implemented (e.g., third party implementation such as that by an insurance company or government). Please include this information earlier on in the inclusion/exclusion criteria.

-Were there situations in which multiple distinct articles reported results from the same research study or wellness program and if so, how did you handle inclusion/exclusion of those articles?

-It appears from Table 2 that you included articles even if the wellness intervention was implemented for both LMICs and non-LMICs in the same sample. Please clarify this within Table 1 or somewhere in the main text, as well as whether results from the LMIC subsamples in those articles could be teased apart from the high-income countries, or in contrast, whether the pooled results were used.

-Students are listed as an excluded population in Table 1. However, Table 2 includes an article by Beleigoli (2020) that includes both students and university staff. Please clarify how this data was handled. Were you able to tease out data for staff from that of students?

MINOR:

4) I gather from S2 that the years searched were from 2010-2021. Please add this information to the main text in either lines 90-91 or somewhere nearby. Is there a specific rationale for choosing these years?

5) Line 103 Did each of the two reviewers screen all articles? Or were articles divided among the two reviewers? Please provide more detail on the allocation of articles to reviewers in in lines 118-119 as well.

6) In Table 2, please define all abbreviations (e.g., RCT, w/o) in the footnotes for the reader. Do not define abbreviations within the table (e.g., (MBSR, SE, SD, etc.). In the main text, there are instances when the same acronym is defined more than once (e.g., RCT in Study Characteristics and Participant Characteristics). Please carefully review the use of acronyms throughout the manuscript.

7) In the Results, please describe how many interventions were purely digital versus how many incorporated parallel in-person components.

8) In Figure 3, the color-coded legend has a max N of N=27,406. Should this not be N=27,466 to reflect the number of participants from India?

9) In the Participant Characteristics of the Results section, it would be helpful to describe whether studies targeted at-risk populations versus general employees overall.

10) Future Research Directions: Please elaborate on what is meant by the statement that there was “no clear consensus on applying theoretical frameworks to the development of digital workplace wellness interventions in LMICs”. I was actually surprised that more than half of the articles were theoretically grounded. In my experience, this proportion parallels what we see in employer-sponsored wellness interventions based in high-income countries.

11) Though no formal review was conducted on the quality of underlying studies/research articles, a sentence or two on the perceived quality of studies would facilitate interpretation of the findings.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript presents a scoping review that aims to explore and provide a comprehensive synthesis of current evidence in relation to the effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability of the digital workplace wellness intervention in the LMICs settings Low- and Middle Income Countries.

The authors utilize systematic searching methods that is guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting guidelines. The review protocol was written prior to undertaking the review (OSF Registry: https://osf.io/qpr9j). The authors use various combinations of keywords related to “digital health”, “intervention”, “workplace”, and “developing country” in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, Scopus and Cochrane Library for peer-reviewed articles in the English language. They identified 10,298 publications, of which 24 were included in the review based on their eligibility criteria, outlined in Table 1.

Their research questions are 1. How have digital technology interventions been conducted in the workplace in LMICs? 2. What research has been done, and what are the effects of these interventions on health- and job performance-related outcomes? 3. What research gaps can be identified from these interventions to improve health behaviours in the workplace in LMICs?

The authors present the PRISMA flow chart in Fig 1. The PRISMA flow chart and text clearly describe the methodology they used for identifying and selecting articles included in the review.

The authors performed narrative data synthesis according to 6 groups of identified outcomes: Lifestyle/ Chronic disease Risk (A), including smoking and cardiovascular disease risk, Weight Management (B), Physical Activity (C), Job performance (D) including work engagement and ergonomic conditions, Stress (E) including burnout, depression and anxiety, and Sleep (F). However, there is little discussion in the findings section about the types of interventions used and the focus or goals of the interventions. What were the goals/focus of the interventions included in the systematic review? Providing more information about the interventions would improve the transferability of the findings to future research and for practice.

Little information is discussed on the duration of intervention and follow-up, additional explanation on this could help the reader understand whether duration and follow-up were critical to effectiveness of the studies.

The authors provide a great discussion of theoretical frameworks used in the study. This information could be more understandable if connected to the types of interventions delivered.

Be specific on the number of studies with a specific attribute or methodology. For example, “Some studies utilized multicomponent interventions” could be improved by including the exact number of studies, similar to reporting earlier “Seven studies included interventions led by both the research team and participants.” (page 20)

More explanation is needed to describe the types of control and comparison groups. (Page 21, line 239.)

If space is needed, consider removing the section titled Excluded or near-miss studies or moving this section to an appendix. (line 250 – 258)

The authors provide in-depth information in table format. Table 2. summarizes included studies grouped by main targeted health outcome. Information presented includes Study, Country, Study design Participants Study duration Mode of delivery / Underlying theory Measured Outcomes Conclusion. Another table provides information on study characteristics such as type of research, workplace settings, study location and publication year; theoretical frameworks; participant characteristics such as sample size and gender. The authors provide supplementary materials on more details on the studies included in S4 Table. These tables provide a lot of detailed information on the studies. The authors may consider condensing some of this information to help the reader quickly understand the results of the studies, perhaps by including a table that lists the number of studies including a specific outcome and whether the outcome was positive significant, negative significant, non-significant, or not reported.

The discussion section states, “This review shows that digital workplace wellness interventions have been used to address a broad range of health behaviours (physical activity level, smoking cessation, sleep quality, burnout) in LMICs,” but there is no explanation in the findings section on the types of interventions or the outcomes associated with those interventions. (page 22)

The discussion section also states that “It is not easy to compare or discern a clear pattern of effectiveness among the 24 studies,” (page 22) while the abstract includes the following statement that indicates positive findings for effectiveness “Most of the studies reported positive feedback on the use of digital wellness interventions in workplace settings. Modest evidence suggests that digital workplace wellness interventions were feasible, cost-effective and acceptable.” (page 2) and “Positive findings and significant improvements were found in all the studies except for two, which found no changes” (page 22). The authors may consider updating the language to remove confusion around effectiveness and positive findings and to address the question: Why was it hard to compare or discern a pattern of effectiveness?

There is a great discussion on evidence gaps that identifies key points to consider for future research.

The authors conclude that their review identified “no clear consensus on applying theoretical frameworks to the development of digital workplace wellness interventions in LMICs, nor on the outcomes that should be targeted or evaluated.” The lack of consensus on theoretical frameworks may be due to included studies involved varying approaches to health promotion and focus on varying outcome measures, which require different theoretical frameworks.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Mary Louise Pomeroy

Reviewer #2: Yes: Debora Goetz Goldberg

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: ReviewerComments_10.03.22.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 28;18(2):e0282118. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282118.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


9 Jan 2023

REVIEWER COMMENTS

Reviewer #1

Overall, this article provides important and much-needed information on employer-sponsored digital workplace interventions in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). I applaud the authors for addressing this gap and conducting a thoughtful and rigorous scoping review of the literature. However, I have several major concerns regarding the Methods and Results. I believe addressing these concerns will make for a more informative, actionable, and relevant article.

Major:

1) The stated goal of the paper was to provide a comprehensive synthesis of current evidence in relation to the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of the digital workplace wellness intervention in the LMICs. However only very basic information is provided on the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of programs. The Results section instead focuses on intervention and design components/qualities rather than findings related to their effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability. Some of the latter elements are discussed in the third paragraph of the Discussion, but the main text Results do not adequately report these findings at a summary level. Information on effectiveness in the main article is largely in the form of a “conclusion” column in Table 2. I have two recommendations to address this concern:

-The Results section would benefit greatly from three high-level summary sections on effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability (e.g., how well interventions worked, which health conditions or behaviors saw the most benefit, which intervention design types realized the most benefits, if information on effectiveness/feasibility/acceptability was mixed or lacking, etc.). I see very little reporting on the feasibility and acceptability of interventions. If it is absent in the underlying studies, please state this.

Response to 1.1: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added two sections for “Effectiveness” and “Feasibility and Acceptability” in the Results section. Feasibility and acceptability were combined into one section due to the small number of studies reporting any outcomes related to these topics (as you stated).

-S3 provides more informative results on effectiveness than Table 2. I recommend that the authors distill some of the information on statistical significance from S3 into a simplified column in Table 2, at least for the quantitative studies (which comprised all but one of the articles). Presenting the information in a simplified but study-specific column in Table 2 would help overcome the authors’ concern that it is difficult to report summary findings due to the difficulty in comparing or discerning “a clear pattern of effectiveness among the 24 studies.”

Response to 1.2: Thank you for the suggestion. We have updated Table 2 with more details.

2) While the authors opine on the potential merits of digital-based interventions in LMICs, it seems that the limitations of such interventions in LMICs are overlooked. Please incorporate text into the Literature Review and Discussion sections that address this. For example, what are the implications regarding generalizability of digital wellness interventions to certain areas of LMICs? Many areas of LMICs have poor access to broadband and electronic devices (e.g., home computers, internet, phone service, equipment cost, etc.). Additionally, I would recommend the authors add information about the size of the companies into their Results, and similarly, incorporate into the Literature Review any existing literature about the effectiveness of digital workplace interventions based on company size. One could imagine that tech-based wellness programs would be more cost-effective and successful for larger companies or those with greater fiscal infrastructure resources to implement the programs. The development and roll-out of digital interventions may require significant effort, finances, and resources that are not available to many employers in LMICs.

Response to 2: Thank you for these suggestions. When available, the company sizes were added in Table 2. Most studies did not report the company sizes, so the number of participants included for baseline eligibility screening was reported instead. The following was also added to the Literature Review regarding company size:

“Another scoping review that examined the return on investment of WWPs in high-income countries found greater returns in larger companies (>500 employees), however, our scoping review was unable to identify any patterns by company size and many studies did not report this information.”

An additional sentence was added to the Discussion section to expand upon the LMIC barriers that were identified in other mHealth studies (and those that you mention here):

“Implementation barriers that were identified included language, the timing of messages, network connection issues, high mobile phone turnover, data privacy, and lack of financial incentives. These same barriers might also apply to the implementation of digital workplace wellness interventions in LMICs, but the studies in this review did not discuss these barriers.”

3) In general, the inclusion/exclusion criteria need to be more specific. Some of the information is presented in the Results, but the article would benefit from clarifying these inclusion/exclusion criteria in the Methods and in Table 1. For example, please address the following questions.

-It appears from the Results section (Study Characteristics) that pilot studies were included. Please clarify this in the Methods. This is important because the Table 1 exclusion criteria (“Protocols and study designs”) might imply that pilot studies were excluded, whereas the inclusion criteria of “design-related outcomes” and “feasibility” measures might imply that they were included.

Response to 3.1: Thanks for the comment. We have updated the study design inclusion criterion in Table 1 under the “Methods” Section.

-It appears from the Results section that interventions did not have to be employer-implemented (e.g., third party implementation such as that by an insurance company or government). Please include this information earlier on in the inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Response to 3.2: Thanks for the comment. We have added an implementer inclusion criterion in Table 1 under the “Methods” Section.

-Were there situations in which multiple distinct articles reported results from the same research study or wellness program and if so, how did you handle inclusion/exclusion of those articles?

Response to 3.3: Yes, there was one set of articles from the same research study, but one of the two articles was the study protocol and was excluded accordingly. The second article (with the study results) was included. We have added this detail under the “Excluded or near-miss studies” section:

“During the screening stage, we found two articles from the same research study but one was excluded because it was a protocol and therefore did not meet the inclusion criteria.”

-It appears from Table 2 that you included articles even if the wellness intervention was implemented for both LMICs and non-LMICs in the same sample. Please clarify this within Table 1 or somewhere in the main text, as well as whether results from the LMIC subsamples in those articles could be teased apart from the high-income countries, or in contrast, whether the pooled results were used.

Response to 3.4: Thanks for the comment. We have updated the location inclusion criterion in Table 1 under the “Methods” Section, and also added the following sentence in the “Study selection and characteristics” section:

“For these studies including participants from both LMICs and high-income countries, results could not be separated by country so the pooled results are presented in this review.”

-Students are listed as an excluded population in Table 1. However, Table 2 includes an article by Beleigoli (2020) that includes both students and university staff. Please clarify how this data was handled. Were you able to tease out data for staff from that of students?

Response to 3.5: Thanks for the comment. We have updated the target population inclusion criterion in Table 1 under the “Methods” Section, and also added the following sentence in the “Participant characteristics” section:

“The study by Beleigoli et al. included both staff and students of a university and, though studies of students did not meet the inclusion criteria for this review, the pooled results are presented here as it was not possible to separate the results for staff only.”

Minor:

4) I gather from S2 that the years searched were from 2010-2021. Please add this information to the main text in either lines 90-91 or somewhere nearby. Is there a specific rationale for choosing these years?

Response to 4: Thanks for this question. The explanation has been added under “Data sources and search strategy” section:

“Articles were only included from 2010-2021 to avoid the inclusion of obsolete digital components such as CD-ROMs and personal digital assistants (PDAs) which are not applicable in the current digital era.”

5) Line 103 Did each of the two reviewers screen all articles? Or were articles divided among the two reviewers? Please provide more detail on the allocation of articles to reviewers in lines 118-119 as well.

Response to 5: Thanks for the question. We have added details to further clarify the allocation of articles and tasks distributed under the “Study Selection” and “Data Extraction” Sections:

Study Selection

“Both reviewers screened all the articles.”

Data extraction

“Two reviewers conducted the data extraction from half of the 24 finalised articles (12 each).”

6) In Table 2, please define all abbreviations (e.g., RCT, w/o) in the footnotes for the reader. Do not define abbreviations within the table (e.g., (MBSR, SE, SD, etc.). In the main text, there are instances when the same acronym is defined more than once (e.g., RCT in Study Characteristics and Participant Characteristics). Please carefully review the use of acronyms throughout the manuscript.

Response to 6: Thanks for the comment - we've reviewed and updated them.

7) In the Results, please describe how many interventions were purely digital versus how many incorporated parallel in-person components. (1 sentence)

Response to 8: Thanks for raising this point - further details have been added under the “Digital Component” section:

Digital component

“... Of the 24 studies, 7 studies24,25,33,36,39,42,45 involved pure digital intervention while the remaining 16 studies 22,23,26,28-32,34,35,37,38,40,41,43,44 involved both digital and human support. For instance, Beleigoli et al (2020) included an online weight loss program and dietitian-delivered personalized feedback.”

8) In Figure 3, the color-coded legend has a max N of N=27,406. Should this not be N=27,466 to reflect the number of participants from India?

Response to 8: Thanks for catching this - the figure has been updated with the correct number.

9) In the Participant Characteristics of the Results section, it would be helpful to describe whether studies targeted at-risk populations versus general employees overall.

Response to 9: Thanks for this suggestion. We have added a “Target population” subsection under the “Results” section to further clarify this:

“17 studies targeted general employees without any health condition and seven targeted the at-risk population. Four articles employed a weight management intervention with an overweight or obese population (n=3) or population intending to lose weight (n=1). One article included employees having prehypertension, one included employees who showed high-stress symptoms, and one included employees with a family history of risk factors for metabolic diseases. Of the 24 articles, two targeted male-only and female-only populations, the remaining included both genders.”

10) Future Research Directions: Please elaborate on what is meant by the statement that there was “no clear consensus on applying theoretical frameworks to the development of digital workplace wellness interventions in LMICs”. I was actually surprised that more than half of the articles were theoretically grounded. In my experience, this proportion parallels what we see in employer-sponsored wellness interventions based in high-income countries.

Response to 10: Thanks for raising this point. We have added further details to clarify that we mean a range of different theoretical frameworks are being studied:

“Second, the review identified that there is no clear consensus on the theoretical frameworks that apply to the development of digital workplace wellness interventions in LMICs, which is likely due to the included studies involving varied approaches to health promotion, which may require different theoretical frameworks.”

11) Though no formal review was conducted on the quality of underlying studies/research articles, a sentence or two on the perceived quality of studies would facilitate interpretation of the findings.

Response to 11: Thanks for this suggestion. We have added a “Study Quality” section to further clarify this:

“This scoping review did not include any formal quality assessment. Many of the studies were RCTs or quasi-experimental studies that aimed to reduce potential sources of bias. However, some of the limitations of the included studies were small sample sizes affecting the generalisability and results, and short study durations, leading to an unknown long-term effect of the intervention.”

Reviewer #2: This manuscript presents a scoping review that aims to explore and provide a comprehensive synthesis of current evidence in relation to the effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability of the digital workplace wellness intervention in the LMICs settings Low- and Middle Income Countries.

The authors utilize systematic searching methods that is guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting guidelines. The review protocol was written prior to undertaking the review (OSF Registry: https://osf.io/qpr9j). The authors use various combinations of keywords related to “digital health”, “intervention”, “workplace”, and “developing country” in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, Scopus and Cochrane Library for peer-reviewed articles in the English language. They identified 10,298 publications, of which 24 were included in the review based on their eligibility criteria, outlined in Table 1.

Their research questions are 1. How have digital technology interventions been conducted in the workplace in LMICs? 2. What research has been done, and what are the effects of these interventions on health- and job performance-related outcomes? 3. What research gaps can be identified from these interventions to improve health behaviours in the workplace in LMICs?

The authors present the PRISMA flow chart in Fig 1. The PRISMA flow chart and text clearly describe the methodology they used for identifying and selecting articles included in the review.

The authors performed narrative data synthesis according to 6 groups of identified outcomes: Lifestyle/ Chronic disease Risk (A), including smoking and cardiovascular disease risk, Weight Management (B), Physical Activity (C), Job performance (D) including work engagement and ergonomic conditions, Stress (E) including burnout, depression and anxiety, and Sleep (F). However, there is little discussion in the findings section about the types of interventions used and the focus or goals of the interventions. What were the goals/focus of the interventions included in the systematic review? Providing more information about the interventions would improve the transferability of the findings to future research and for practice.

Response to 1: Thanks for this suggestion. The goal/focus of the intervention was added in Table 2 under the “intervention details” column.

Little information is discussed on the duration of intervention and follow-up, additional explanation on this could help the reader understand whether duration and follow-up were critical to effectiveness of the studies.

Response to 2: Thanks for raising this point. We have added some details regarding the study durations and follow-up periods in the “Main Findings” subsection of the “Discussion” section:

“For example, the duration of interventions varied greatly. Two studies that did not find statistically significant results had very different durations - one was a 7-week intervention without follow up, and the other was a 12-month intervention with 6 month follow up. The remaining 22 studies included interventions ranging from 20 minutes to 2 years (with or without follow-up) and found statistically significant improvements on the targeted outcomes, suggesting that there was no clear pattern of duration and follow-up for study effectiveness in the current review.”

The authors provide a great discussion of theoretical frameworks used in the study. This information could be more understandable if connected to the types of interventions delivered.

Response to 3: Thank you for the suggestion - we’ve added more details under the “Theoretical Frameworks” section:

“Some of the included studies drew on theoretical frameworks in their design or analysis. Three studies reported that their interventions drew on the Transtheoretical Model of Behaviour Change (n=3) with two using motivational messages and calls, and the other providing health information. Two studies were based on Social Cognitive Theory (n=2), with one involving education/training, and the other using a WeChat group for motivation and progress reporting. Two used the Health Belief Model (n=2), with one involving education material and the other involving motivational calls and personal text messages. One study adopted the Theory of Planned Behaviour with education training, messaging, and knowledge sharing in a Telegram group. Another used Behaviour Change Techniques with coaching and pedometer-generated personalised feedback. Another used Self Efficacy while asking participants to post 3 good things every day. One study used Goal Setting and provided health information through phone messages and emails. Another study drew on the Behaviour Change Wheel and involved coaching and pedometer-generated personalised feedback. Another study used Influential Theory and involved pictures, videos, and text messages on positive emotions. Eleven studies mentioned no clear theoretical basis.”

Be specific on the number of studies with a specific attribute or methodology. For example, “Some studies utilized multicomponent interventions” could be improved by including the exact number of studies, similar to reporting earlier “Seven studies included interventions led by both the research team and participants.” (page 20)

Response to 4: Thanks for raising this point - we've updated the exact number of studies:

“10 studies23,32,33,35-39,43,45 involved single digital component intervention, whereas 14 studies22,24-31,34,40,41,43,44 utilised multi-component interventions where more than one digital component was used.”

More explanation is needed to describe the types of control and comparison groups. (Page 21, line 239.) If space is needed, consider removing the section titled Excluded or near-miss studies or moving this section to an appendix. (line 250 – 258)

Response to 5: Thanks for this suggestion. Further details have been added under the “Control and Comparison” section:

“Five studies reported no intervention adopted in the control groups. Among the remaining 11 studies, one received a self-monitored intervention, eight received the usual intervention without a digital component involved or a partial component. For example, Liu et al. (2015) only provided usual medical examinations to the control group without follow-up calls and text messages. Pillay et al. (2014) provided a partial intervention to the control group, sending general motivational email messages without personalised pedometer feedback.”

The authors provide in-depth information in table format. Table 2. summarizes included studies grouped by main targeted health outcome. Information presented includes Study, Country, Study design Participants Study duration Mode of delivery / Underlying theory Measured Outcomes Conclusion. Another table provides information on study characteristics such as type of research, workplace settings, study location and publication year; theoretical frameworks; participant characteristics such as sample size and gender. The authors provide supplementary materials on more details on the studies included in S4 Table. These tables provide a lot of detailed information on the studies. The authors may consider condensing some of this information to help the reader quickly understand the results of the studies, perhaps by including a table that lists the number of studies including a specific outcome and whether the outcome was positive significant, negative significant, non-significant, or not reported.

Response to 6: Thank you for this suggestion. A new Table 1 has been added with the overall characteristics of the included studies, and further outcome details have been added to Table 2. New subsections on “Effectiveness of the Interventions” and “Feasibility and Acceptability of the Interventions” have also been added to the Results to help readers quickly understand the results of the studies.

The discussion section states, “This review shows that digital workplace wellness interventions have been used to address a broad range of health behaviours (physical activity level, smoking cessation, sleep quality, burnout) in LMICs,” but there is no explanation in the findings section on the types of interventions or the outcomes associated with those interventions. (page 22)

Response to 7: Thanks for raising this point. We have added a new subsection on the “Effectiveness of the Interventions” in the Results section which further clarifies the types of intervention and the associated outcomes.

The discussion section also states that “It is not easy to compare or discern a clear pattern of effectiveness among the 24 studies,” (page 22) while the abstract includes the following statement that indicates positive findings for effectiveness “Most of the studies reported positive feedback on the use of digital wellness interventions in workplace settings. Modest evidence suggests that digital workplace wellness interventions were feasible, cost-effective and acceptable.” (page 2) and “Positive findings and significant improvements were found in all the studies except for two, which found no changes” (page 22). The authors may consider updating the language to remove confusion around effectiveness and positive findings and to address the question: Why was it hard to compare or discern a pattern of effectiveness?

Response to 8: Thanks for raising this point. We have updated the Results section to more clearly articulate the results related to effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability (as described in our responses to your earlier comments above), and have added details to address your question in the “Main findings” subsection of the Discussion section:

“Of the 24 articles, statistically-significant improvements were found in all the studies except for two which found no changes. Therefore, it seems that digital WWPs hold promise for improving outcomes in LMICs, however, it is not possible to discern specific patterns between intervention components and outcomes as all the studies varied in intervention components, study design, duration, target outcomes, and so on.

There is a great discussion on evidence gaps that identifies key points to consider for future research. The authors conclude that their review identified “no clear consensus on applying theoretical frameworks to the development of digital workplace wellness interventions in LMICs, nor on the outcomes that should be targeted or evaluated.” The lack of consensus on theoretical frameworks may be due to included studies involved varying approaches to health promotion and focus on varying outcome measures, which require different theoretical frameworks.

Response to 9: Thank you for raising this point. We have added this potential explanation to the “Future Research Directions” subsection of the Discussion section:

“Second, the review identified that there is no clear consensus on the theoretical frameworks that apply to the development of digital workplace wellness interventions in LMICs, which is likely due to the included studies involving varied approaches to health promotion, which may require different theoretical frameworks.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers Comments.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Ali A Weinstein

8 Feb 2023

A Scoping Review of Digital Workplace Wellness Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

PONE-D-22-17661R1

Dear Dr. Watterson,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ali A. Weinstein, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for thoughtfully addressing the reviewers' comments.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors were very comprehensive in their edits to the manuscript based on feedback from multiple reviewers.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Debora Goetz Goldberg

**********

Attachment

Submitted filename: The authors have sufficiently addressed all the reviewer concerns and comments.docx

Acceptance letter

Ali A Weinstein

20 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-17661R1

A Scoping Review of Digital Workplace Wellness Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Dear Dr. Watterson:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ali A. Weinstein

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. PRISMA checklist.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Sample search strategy (MEDLINE).

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Detailed data extraction table.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ReviewerComments_10.03.22.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers Comments.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: The authors have sufficiently addressed all the reviewer concerns and comments.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All data is available in existing library databases that we searched. Our methodology is outlined in the article to allow others to reproduce the search.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES