Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24341605›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2013

What is actually measured in process evaluations for worksite health promotion programs: a systematic review.

Debbie Wierenga, Luuk H Engbers, Pepijn Van Empelen, Saskia Duijts, Vincent H Hildebrandt, Willem Van Mechelen

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 105 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
105citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
25.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

105 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 235 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Measuring implementation fidelity of school-based obesity prevention programmes: a systematic review.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2018
    Pooled it
  8. Obstacles and Future Prospects: Considerations on Health Promotion Activities for Older Workers in Europe.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

45 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Debbie WierengaBody@Work, Research Centre on Physical Activity, Work and Health, TNO-VUmc, Amsterdam, Netherlands. debbie.wierenga@tno.nl.
Luuk H Engbers
Pepijn Van Empelen
Saskia Duijts
Vincent H Hildebrandt
Willem Van Mechelen
Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research · NLEMGO Institute for Health and Care Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNumerous worksite health promotion program (WHPPs) have been implemented the past years to improve employees' health and lifestyle (i.e., physical activity, nutrition, smoking, alcohol use and relaxation). Research primarily focused on the effectiveness of these WHPPs. Whereas process evaluations provide essential information necessary to improve large scale implementation across other settings. Therefore, this review aims to: (1) further our understanding of the quality of process evaluations alongside effect evaluations for WHPPs, (2) identify barriers/facilitators affecting implementation, and (3) explore the relationship between effectiveness and the implementation process.

methodsPubmed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane (controlled trials) were searched from 2000 to July 2012 for peer-reviewed (randomized) controlled trials published in English reporting on both the effectiveness and the implementation process of a WHPP focusing on physical activity, smoking cessation, alcohol use, healthy diet and/or relaxation at work, targeting employees aged 18-65 years.

resultsOf the 307 effect evaluations identified, twenty-two (7.2%) published an additional process evaluation and were included in this review. The results showed that eight of those studies based their process evaluation on a theoretical framework. The methodological quality of nine process evaluations was good. The most frequently reported process components were dose delivered and dose received. Over 50 different implementation barriers/facilitators were identified. The most frequently reported facilitator was strong management support. Lack of resources was the most frequently reported barrier. Seven studies examined the link between implementation and effectiveness. In general a positive association was found between fidelity, dose and the primary outcome of the program.

conclusionsProcess evaluations are not systematically performed alongside effectiveness studies for WHPPs. The quality of the process evaluations is mostly poor to average, resulting in a lack of systematically measured barriers/facilitators. The narrow focus on implementation makes it difficult to explore the relationship between effectiveness and implementation. Furthermore, the operationalisation of process components varied between studies, indicating a need for consensus about defining and operationalising process components.

Indexed as

Occupational HealthHealth PromotionHumansProgram EvaluationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID24341605
PMCPMC3890539
OpenAlexW1973591010

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.