Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27475445›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2017

Process Evaluation of a Workers' Health Surveillance Program for Meat Processing Workers.

Berry J van Holland, Sandra Brouwer, Michiel R de Boer, Michiel F Reneman, Remko Soer

Open access · hybridAbstract readEvaluation StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Effectiveness of Interventions to Promote Sustainable Employability: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Berry J van HollandDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Center for Rehabilitation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands. b.j.van.holland@umcg.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-1293-2900
Sandra BrouwerDepartment of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Michiel R de BoerDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Institute for Health Sciences, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Michiel F RenemanDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Center for Rehabilitation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Remko SoerExpertise Center of Health, Social Care and Technology, Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Enschede, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

ZonMw 208030005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the implementation process of a workers' health surveillance (WHS) program in a Dutch meat processing company. Methods Workers from five plants were eligible to participate in the WHS program. The program consisted of four evaluative components and an intervention component. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to evaluate seven process aspects. Data were gathered by interviews with stakeholders, participant questionnaires, and from registries of the company and occupational health service. Results Two recruitment strategies were used: open invitation or automatic participation. Of the 986 eligible workers, 305 participated in the program. Average reach was 53 %. Two out of five program components could not be assessed on dose delivered, dose received and fidelity. If components were assessable, 85-100 % of the components was delivered, 66-100 % of the components was received by participants, and fidelity was 100 %. Participants were satisfied with the WHS program (mean score 7.6). Contextual factors that facilitated implementation were among others societal developments and management support. Factors that formed barriers were program novelty and delayed follow-up. Conclusion The WHS program was well received by participants. Not all participants were offered the same number of program components, and not all components were performed according to protocol. Deviation from protocol is an indication of program failure and may affect program effectiveness.

Indexed as

Meat-Packing IndustryOccupational HealthProgram EvaluationAdultFemaleHealth PromotionHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsOccupational Health ServicesQualitative ResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesImplementation researchMeatpacking industryQualitativeQuantitativeSustainable employability

Identifiers

PMID27475445
PMCPMC5591347
OpenAlexW2506161530

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.