Economic Evaluations of Physical Exercise at Work: A Scoping Review.

Purpose

Despite the well-established positive benefits of physical activity and the recognised consequences of physical inactivity, evidence on its cost and cost-effectiveness remains inconclusive. This scoping review aims to descriptively summarise studies on economic evaluations of workplace physical exercise interventions from both employers and societal perspectives.

Methods

This review was conducted following the JBI and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We included studies assessing economic evaluations of workplace physical exercise programmes from PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Medline, EBSCO, EconLit, The Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database from January 2000 to March 2025. Screening, selection, and data extraction were independently performed by two researchers. Extracted data included study characteristics, population, intervention type, economic evaluation approach, outcomes, and main findings. Results are presented using summary tables along with narrative synthesis.

Results

The search resulted in 5,007 unique records, of which we included 13 studies published between 2012 and 2025. Of these, most (n = 9) were randomised controlled trials. Occupational settings included sedentary and physically demanding jobs. Interventions included multicomponent programmes (n = 6) combining physical exercise with education, ergonomics, or nutritional guidance, and single-component programmes (n = 7) centred on strength training, stretching, and aerobic activities. Evaluations were conducted from multiple perspectives, reporting various health-related, work-related, and economic outcomes, including productivity, absenteeism, sickness absence, and compensation claims.

Conclusion

This review highlights substantial heterogeneity in the economic evaluations of workplace physical exercise interventions, regarding populations, interventions, methods, outcomes, and results. More high-quality research following standardised methodological guidance is needed to support future implementation and decision-making.