Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27905904›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2016

Evaluating the implementation process of a participatory organizational level occupational health intervention in schools.

Roosmarijn M C Schelvis, Noortje M Wiezer, Birgitte M Blatter, Joost A G M van Genabeek, Karen M Oude Hengel, Ernst T Bohlmeijer, Allard J van der Beek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Developing Initial Middle Range Theories in Realist Evaluation: A Case of an Organisational Intervention.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors.

Roosmarijn M C SchelvisNetherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research TNO, P.O. Box 3005, NL-2301 DA, Leiden, The Netherlands. roos.schelvis@tno.nl.
Noortje M WiezerNetherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research TNO, P.O. Box 3005, NL-2301 DA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Birgitte M BlatterNetherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research TNO, P.O. Box 3005, NL-2301 DA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Joost A G M van GenabeekNetherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research TNO, P.O. Box 3005, NL-2301 DA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Karen M Oude HengelNetherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research TNO, P.O. Box 3005, NL-2301 DA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Ernst T BohlmeijerDepartment of Psychology, Health and Technology, University of Twente, P. O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Allard J van der BeekBody@Work, Research Center on Physical Activity, Work and Health, TNO-VU/VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe importance of process evaluations in examining how and why interventions are (un) successful is increasingly recognized. Process evaluations mainly studied the implementation process and the quality of the implementation (fidelity). However, in adopting this approach for participatory organizational level occupational health interventions, important aspects such as context and participants perceptions are missing. Our objective was to systematically describe the implementation process of a participatory organizational level occupational health intervention aimed at reducing work stress and increasing vitality in two schools by applying a framework that covers aspects of the intervention and its implementation as well as the context and participants perceptions.

methodsA program theory was developed, describing the requirements for successful implementation. Each requirement was operationalized by making use of the framework, covering: initiation, communication, participation, fidelity, reach, communication, satisfaction, management support, targeting, delivery, exposure, culture, conditions, readiness for change and perceptions. The requirements were assessed by quantitative and qualitative data, collected at 12 and 24 months after baseline in both schools (questionnaire and interviews) or continuously (logbooks).

resultsThe intervention consisted of a needs assessment phase and a phase of implementing intervention activities. The needs assessment phase was implemented successfully in school A, but not in school B where participation and readiness for change were insufficient. In the second phase, several intervention activities were implemented at school A, whereas this was only partly the case in school B (delivery). In both schools, however, participants felt not involved in the choice of intervention activities (targeting, participation, support), resulting in a negative perception of and only partial exposure to the intervention activities. Conditions, culture and events hindered the implementation of intervention activities in both schools.

conclusionsThe framework helped us to understand why the implementation process was not successful. It is therefore considered of added value for the evaluation of implementation processes in participatory organizational level interventions, foremost because of the context and mental models dimensions. However, less demanding methods for doing detailed process evaluations need to be developed. This can only be done if we know more about the most important process components and this study contributes to that knowledge base.

trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NTR3284 .

Indexed as

Burnout, ProfessionalFacultyFemaleHealth StatusHumansMaleNetherlandsOccupational HealthOccupational Health ServicesOrganizational InnovationPopulation GroupsPrimary PreventionSchoolsMixed methodsPrimary preventionProcess evaluationSecondary vocational schoolTeacher

Identifiers

PMID27905904
PMCPMC5134077

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.