Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of main results

From: Social marketing including financial incentive programs at worksite cafeterias for preventing obesity: a systematic review

Outcome Mean difference IV, Fixed, (95% CI) p value Effect size (η2p) p value Intervention Mean (SD) No intervention Mean (SD) No. participants (studies) Authors Others Quality of evidence (GRADE)
      Pre Post Pre Post     
Weight changes (kg) 0.0
(−11.69, 11.69)
1.00*1 0.04*2 0.11*2 85.5
(16.2)
85.9
(16.8)
78.7
(21.0)
79.1
(20.5)
96 (1) Lowe et al.   very low 1,2,3,5
Body mass index (kg/m2)   308 (1) Vermeer et al. Self-assessment low 1,2,3
HbA1c (%)    very low 1,2,3,5
Blood pressure (mmHg)   Lowe et al.   very low 1,2,3,5
Cholesterol
Total cholesterol (mg) 16.1
(−4.67, 36.87)
0.13*1 0.07*2 < 0.05*2 192.4
(32.4)
201.8
(28.9)
204.1
(41.8)
197.4
(42.3)
96 (1) Lowe et al.   very low 1,2,3,5
High-density lipoprotein (mg) 4.2
(−5.66, 14.06)
0.40*1 0.06*2 < 0.05*2 58.4
(16.6)
60.9
(16.6)
58.7
(19.5)
57.0
(16.9)
96 (1) Lowe et al.   very low 1,2,3,5
Low-density lipoprotein (mg) 10.1
(−9.00, 29.20)
0.30*1 0.05*2 0.08*2 115.4
(31.6)
121.5
(31.3)
124.1
(34.4)
120.1
(37.5)
96 (1) Lowe et al.   very low 1,2,3,5
Fruit   0.07*2 < 0.05*2 0.77SV 0.98SV 1.41SV 0.96SV 96 (1) Lowe et al. 24-h dietary recall low 1,3,4
  1. Financial incentive intervention compared to no incentive intervention in terms of outcomes.
  2. Patient population: workers.
  3. Settings: workplace cafeteria.
  4. Intervention: financial intervention (+ environmental intervention)
  5. Comparison: no incentive intervention (+education)
  6. *1statistically significant changes in the intervention group and no intervention group
  7. *2repeated measures analysis reported using partial eta2 (η2p)
  8. Effect sizes (η2p); 0.01,0.06,0.14 = small, medium, large
  9. Quality of evidence (GRADE)
  10. 1. Random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, selective reporting, and other biases high or unclear
  11. 2. Random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting high or unclear
  12. 3. Small sample size
  13. 4. Baseline showed a significant difference for fruit consumption
  14. 5. Wide 95% CI
  15. SD standard deviation, CI confidence interval, HbA1c hemoglobin A1c