ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2014
Assessing quality of a worksite health promotion programme from participants' views: findings from a qualitative study in Malaysia.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing informal workers' tools to reduce workplace injuries: a quasi-randomized control trial of electronic waste recyclers in Thailand.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2026Trial
- We are not all coping: a cross-sectional investigation of resilience in the dementia care workforce.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2016Article
- Editorial. Health Expectations.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2014Article
- Evaluation of end-user satisfaction among employees participating in a web-based health risk assessment with tailored feedback.Journal of medical Internet research · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn assessment of the process and outcomes of a health promotion programme is necessary for the continuous improvement of a programme.
objectiveTo explore the participants' perceptions of the quality and effectiveness of the 'Love Your Heart Programme'.
designA qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of participants of the 'Love Your Heart' programme. Interviews were based on an interview guide that grouped questions into four main subgroups: structure, process, immediate outcomes and impact. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the principles of grounded theory.
resultsA total of 17 interviews were conducted. The participants were satisfied with the structural aspects of the programme. Different opinions arose regarding the ideal frequency and duration of the programme. The content of the seminars was thought to be too general. There was also a lack of interest in the 'Road to a Healthy Heart' booklet. All of the respondents had positive opinions about the communication skills and attitude of the health educator. The potential advantages and disadvantages of participating in the programme were discussed. Finally, the respondents expressed their satisfaction with the programme and the impact it had on them. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsIn general, the participants who were interviewed held the programme, and the health educator conducted the programme in high regard. The suggestions that were received can be used to further improve the acceptability and feasibility of the programme.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.