Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29948471›Full record

SynthesisJournal of occupational rehabilitation2019

Interventions Developed with the Intervention Mapping Protocol in Work Disability Prevention: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

J B Fassier, P Sarnin, S Rouat, J Péron, G Kok, L Letrilliart, M Lamort-Bouché

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.9field-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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

J B FassierUniv Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Unité mixte de recherche Epidémiologique et de Surveillance Transport Travail Environnement, UMRESTTE UMR T 9405, 8 Avenue Rockefeller, 69008, Lyon, France. Jean-baptiste.fassier@univ-lyon1.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3885-4987
P SarninUniv Lyon, Université Lumière Lyon 2, GREPS - EA 4163 (Groupe de recherche en psychologie sociale), Lyon, France.
S RouatUniv Lyon, Université Lumière Lyon 2, GREPS - EA 4163 (Groupe de recherche en psychologie sociale), Lyon, France.
J PéronUniv Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive LBBE - UMR 5558, Lyon, France.
G KokDepartment of Work and Social Psychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
L LetrilliartUniv Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Health Services and Performance Research, HESPER Université Lyon 2, Lyon, France.
M Lamort-BouchéUniv Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Unité mixte de recherche Epidémiologique et de Surveillance Transport Travail Environnement, UMRESTTE UMR T 9405, 8 Avenue Rockefeller, 69008, Lyon, France.
Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRMaastricht University · NL

Funding

Institut National Du Cancer Convention 2016-003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purposes Intervention mapping (IM) is a protocol for developing effective behavior change interventions. It has been used for 10 years to develop work disability prevention (WDP) interventions, but it is not known to what extent and with what success. The main objective of this study was to review the effectiveness of these interventions. Secondary objectives were to review their fidelity to the IM protocol, their theoretical frameworks and their content. Methods A search strategy was conducted in MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Pascal, Francis, and BDSP. All titles and abstracts were reviewed. A standardized extraction form was developed. All included studies were reviewed by two reviewers blinded to each other. Results Eight WDP interventions were identified aimed at return to work (RTW; n = 6) and self-management at work (n = 2). RTW interventions targeted workers with stress-related mental disorders (n = 1), low back pain (n = 1), musculoskeletal disorders (n = 1), cancer (n = 2) and gynecological surgery (n = 1). The fidelity to the IM protocol was weaker for the participatory planning group. Matrices of change, change methods, and applications were systematically reported. The main theoretical frameworks used were the attitude-social influence-self efficacy model (n = 4) and the theory of planned behavior (n = 2). Half of the interventions included a workplace component (n = 4). Two interventions were reported as effective, and one partially effective. Conclusion The IM protocol is used in WDP since 2007. The participative dimension appears underused. Few theoretical frameworks were used. Implications are to better consider the stakeholders involvement, and mobilize theoretical frameworks with greater attempts to intervene on the work environment.

Indexed as

Occupational HealthReturn to WorkSick LeaveHumansPersons with DisabilitiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSelf EfficacyWorkplaceHealth program planningIntervention mappingModelsProgram evaluationReturn to workTheoretical

Identifiers

PMID29948471
OpenAlexW2808218613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.