Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24885476›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical research methodology2014

Adoption of workplaces and reach of employees for a multi-faceted intervention targeting low back pain among nurses' aides.

Charlotte Diana Nørregaard Rasmussen, Anne Konring Larsen, Andreas Holtermann, Karen Søgaard, Marie Birk Jørgensen

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical research methodology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Attending work with chronic pain is associated with higher levels of psychosocial stress.Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. The role of managers in addressing employees with musculoskeletal pain: a mixed methods study.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2018
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Do working environment interventions reach shift workers?International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2016
    Article
  15. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Charlotte Diana Nørregaard RasmussenNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Lersø Parkallé 105, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark. cnr@nrcwe.dk.
Anne Konring Larsen
Andreas Holtermann
Karen Søgaard
Marie Birk Jørgensen
National Research Centre for the Working Environment · DKUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWorkplace adoption and reach of health promotion are important, but generally poorly reported. The aim of this study is therefore to evaluate the adoption of workplaces (organizational level) and reach of employees (individual level) of a multi-faceted workplace health promotion and work environment intervention targeting low back pain among nurses' aides in elderly care.

methodsPercentage of adopters was calculated among eligible workplaces and differences between adopters and non-adopters were evaluated through workplace registrations and manager questionnaires from all eligible workplaces. From the adopted workplaces reach was calculated among eligible employees as the percentage who responded on a questionnaire. Responders were compared with non-responders using data from company registrations. Among responders, comparisons based on questionnaire data were performed between those consenting to participate in the intervention (consenters) and those not consenting to participate in the intervention (non-consenters). Comparisons were done using Student's t-test for the continuous variables, Fisher's exact test for dichotomous variables and the Pearson's chi(2) for categorical variables. Moreover odds ratios for non-responding and non-consenting were investigated with binary logistic regression analyses.

resultsThe project was adopted by 44% of the offered workplaces. The main differences between adopters and non-adopters were that workplaces adopting the intervention had a more stable organization as well as a management with positive beliefs of the intervention's potential benefits. Of eligible employees, 71% responded on the questionnaire and 57% consented to participate. Non-responders and non-consenters did not differ from the responders and consenters on demographic factors and health. However, more non-responders and non-consenters were low skilled, worked less than 30 hours pr. week, and worked evening and nightshift compared to responders and consenters, respectively. Consenters had more musculoskeletal pain and reduced self-rated health, as well as higher physical exertion during work compared to non-consenters.

conclusionsOur recruitment effort yielded a population of consenters that was representative of the target population of nurses' aides with respect to demographic factors, and health. Moreover more consenters had problems like pain and high physical exertion during work, which fitted the scope of the intervention.

trial registrationThe study is registered as ISRCTN78113519.

Indexed as

Nursing AssistantsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth PromotionHome Health AidesHumansLow Back PainMaleMiddle AgedNursing HomesOccupational DiseasesOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient ComplianceSurveys and QuestionnairesWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID24885476
PMCPMC4021388
OpenAlexW2084662904

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.