Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23731570›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2013

Bridging the gap between the economic evaluation literature and daily practice in occupational health: a qualitative study among decision-makers in the healthcare sector.

Johanna M van Dongen, Emile Tompa, Laurie Clune, Anna Sarnocinska-Hart, Paulien M Bongers, Maurits W van Tulder, Allard J van der Beek, Marieke F van Wier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Economic evaluations in occupational health: what brings the best bang for the buck?Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Methodological Challenges in the Economic Evaluation of Occupational Health and Safety Programmes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Johanna M van DongenBody@Work, Research Center for Physical Activity, Work and Health, TNO-VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. j.m.van.dongen@vu.nl
Emile Tompa
Laurie Clune
Anna Sarnocinska-Hart
Paulien M Bongers
Maurits W van Tulder
Allard J van der Beek
Marieke F van Wier

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContinued improvements in occupational health can only be ensured if decisions regarding the implementation and continuation of occupational health and safety interventions (OHS interventions) are based on the best available evidence. To ensure that this is the case, scientific evidence should meet the needs of decision-makers. As a first step in bridging the gap between the economic evaluation literature and daily practice in occupational health, this study aimed to provide insight into the occupational health decision-making process and information needs of decision-makers.

methodsAn exploratory qualitative study was conducted with a purposeful sample of occupational health decision-makers in the Ontario healthcare sector. Eighteen in-depth interviews were conducted to explore the process by which occupational health decisions are made and the importance given to the financial implications of OHS interventions. Twenty-five structured telephone interviews were conducted to explore the sources of information used during the decision-making process, and decision-makers' knowledge on economic evaluation methods. In-depth interview data were analyzed according to the constant comparative method. For the structured telephone interviews, summary statistics were prepared.

resultsThe occupational health decision-making process generally consists of three stages: initiation stage, establishing the need for an intervention; pre-implementation stage, developing an intervention and its business case in order to receive senior management approval; and implementation and evaluation stage, implementing and evaluating an intervention. During this process, information on the financial implications of OHS interventions was found to be of great importance, especially the employer's costs and benefits. However, scientific evidence was rarely consulted, sound ex-post program evaluations were hardly ever performed, and there seemed to be a need to advance the economic evaluation skill set of decision-makers.

conclusionsFinancial information is particularly important at the front end of implementation decisions, and can be a key deciding factor of whether to go forward with a new OHS intervention. In addition, it appears that current practice in occupational health in the healthcare sector is not solidly grounded in evidence-based decision-making and strategies should be developed to improve this.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAccreditationCosts and Cost AnalysisDiffusion of InnovationEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleFinancing, OrganizedHealth Care SectorHealth Facility SizeHumansInformation DisseminationInterprofessional RelationsMaleMedical AuditOccupational HealthOntario

Identifiers

PMID23731570
PMCPMC3674944

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.