Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27378470›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of industrial medicine2016

Process evaluation of two participatory approaches: Implementing total worker health® interventions in a correctional workforce.

Alicia G Dugan, Dana A Farr, Sara Namazi, Robert A Henning, Kelly N Wallace, Mazen El Ghaziri, Laura Punnett, Jeffrey L Dussetschleger, Martin G Cherniack

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of industrial medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Development and Implementation of a Total Worker HealthInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Review
  14. Research Methodologies for Total Worker Health®: Proceedings From a Workshop.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. The Value of Worker Well-Being.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)
    Article
  17. Total Worker HealthThe American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association
    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

9 authors.

Alicia G DuganDepartment of Medicine, UConn Health, Farmington, Connecticut. adugan@uchc.edu.
Dana A FarrDepartment of Medicine, UConn Health, Farmington, Connecticut.
Sara NamaziDepartment of Medicine, UConn Health, Farmington, Connecticut.
Robert A HenningDepartment of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut.
Kelly N WallaceDepartment of Medicine, UConn Health, Farmington, Connecticut.
Mazen El GhaziriSchool of Nursing, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts.
Laura PunnettDepartment of Work Environment, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts.
Jeffrey L DussetschlegerDepartment of Medicine, UConn Health, Farmington, Connecticut.
Martin G CherniackDepartment of Medicine, UConn Health, Farmington, Connecticut.

Funding

Center for the Promotion of Health in the New England WorkplaceU19OH008857 · OH · UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL · PI PUNNETT, LAURA · 2006 to 2020
$20.4M
NIOSH CDC HHS U19 OH008857
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCorrectional Officers (COs) have among the highest injury rates and poorest health of all the public safety occupations. The HITEC-2 (Health Improvement Through Employee Control-2) study uses Participatory Action Research (PAR) to design and implement interventions to improve health and safety of COs.

methodHITEC-2 compared two different types of participatory program, a CO-only "Design Team" (DT) and "Kaizen Event Teams" (KET) of COs and supervisors, to determine differences in implementation process and outcomes. The Program Evaluation Rating Sheet (PERS) was developed to document and evaluate program implementation.

resultsBoth programs yielded successful and unsuccessful interventions, dependent upon team-, facility-, organizational, state-, facilitator-, and intervention-level factors.

conclusionsPAR in corrections, and possibly other sectors, depends upon factors including participation, leadership, continuity and timing, resilience, and financial circumstances. The new PERS instrument may be useful in other sectors to assist in assessing intervention success. Am. J. Ind. Med. 59:897-918, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Indexed as

PrisonsCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchHealth PromotionHumansOccupational ExposureOccupational HealthOccupational InjuriesProgram DevelopmentProgram EvaluationSafety ManagementSocial Control, FormalUnited Statescorrectionsimplementationintervention design and analysis scorecardoccupational healthparticipatory action researchprocess evaluationtotal worker health

Identifiers

PMID27378470
PMCPMC5860806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.