Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32164716›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Responsive evaluation of stakeholder dialogue as a worksite health promotion intervention to contribute to the reduction of SEP related health inequalities: a study protocol.

Hanneke van Heijster, Jantien van Berkel, Tineke Abma, Cécile R L Boot, Emely de Vet

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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.

Hanneke van HeijsterDepartment of Social Sciences, Chair group Consumption & Healthy Lifestyles, Wageningen University & Research, Hollandseweg 1, 6706, Wageningen, KN, The Netherlands. hanneke.vanheijster@wur.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9064-7788
Jantien van BerkelDepartment of Social Sciences, Chair group Consumption & Healthy Lifestyles, Wageningen University & Research, Hollandseweg 1, 6706, Wageningen, KN, The Netherlands.
Tineke AbmaDepartment of Medical Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Cécile R L BootDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Emely de VetDepartment of Social Sciences, Chair group Consumption & Healthy Lifestyles, Wageningen University & Research, Hollandseweg 1, 6706, Wageningen, KN, The Netherlands.

Funding

ZonMw 531001417
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge health inequalities exist in the Netherlands among individuals with a high compared to a low socioeconomic position. Worksite health promotion interventions are considered promising to reduce these inequalities, however, current interventions seem not to have the desired effects. This study proposes 'moral case deliberation', a form of stakeholder dialogue on moral dilemmas, as an integrated and inclusive intervention for worksite health promotion. This intervention takes into account three factors that are considered possible underlying causes of low effectiveness of current interventions, namely the lack of deliberate attention to: 1) the diverging values and interests of stakeholders in worksite health promotion, 2) the ethical issues of worksite health promotion, and 3) the connection with the lived experience (lifeworld) of lower SEP employees. Moral case deliberation will help to gain insight in the conflicting values in worksite health promotion, which contributes to the development of a vision for worksite health promotion that is supported by all parties.

methodsThe intervention will be evaluated through Responsive Evaluation, a form of participatory research. Key to Responsive Evaluation is that stakeholders are consulted to determine relevant changes as a result of the intervention. The intervention will be evaluated yearly at both fixed moments (baseline and annual evaluation(s)) and continuously. Mixed methods will be used, including interviews, participatory observations, analyses of HRM-data and short questionnaires. In addition, the intervention will be evaluated economically, on both monetary and non-monetary outcomes. DISCUSSION: This protocol proposes an innovative intervention and a novel participatory evaluation in the context of worksite health promotion. The study aims to gain understanding in how dialogue on moral dilemmas on health and health promotion can contribute to heightened personal and mutual understanding among stakeholders and practice improvements in the work context. By evaluating the intervention in more than one setting, findings of this study will provide knowledge about how MCD can be adapted to specific work settings and what changes it may lead to in these settings.

trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register (NRT): NL8051. Registration date: 28/09/2019, retrospectively registered. https://www.trialregister.nl/.

Indexed as

Health Status DisparitiesOccupational HealthSocial ClassStakeholder ParticipationClinical Trials as TopicHumansNetherlandsProgram EvaluationHealth inequalitiesResponsive evaluationStakeholder dialogueWorksite health promotion

Identifiers

PMID32164716
PMCPMC7068920

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.