ArticleBMC public health2020
Safety and Health through Integrated, Facilitated Teams (SHIFT): stepped-wedge protocol for prospective, mixed-methods evaluation of the Healthy Workplace Participatory Program.
Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04251429 (Safety and Health Through Integrated Facilitated Teams), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Safety and Health Through Integrated Facilitated Teams (SHIFT)
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Small + Safe + Well: lessons learned from a Total Worker Health® randomized intervention to promote organizational change in small business.BMC public health · 2022Trial
- Emotional Exhaustion in Healthcare Workers: Moving Beyond Coping Skills to Improve Organizational Conditions.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2024Article
- Moving behavioral interventions in nursing homes from planning to action: a work system evaluation of a urinary tract infection toolkit implementation.Implementation science communications · 2023Article
- A participatory ergonomics intervention to re-design work and improve the musculoskeletal health of paramedics: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Work-Family Conflict and Depression Among Healthcare Workers: The Role of Sleep and Decision Latitude.Workplace health & safety · 2023Article
- The Feasibility of a Text-Messaging Intervention Promoting Physical Activity in Shift Workers: A Process Evaluation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Response to NIOSH Request for Information on Interventions to Prevent Work-Related Stress and Support Health Worker Mental Health.New solutions : a journal of environmental and occupational health policy : NS · 2022Article
- Use of a Mobile App for the Process Evaluation of an Intervention in Health Care: Development and Usability Study.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the HearWell Pilot Program: A ParticipatoryInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Emotional Labor and Depressive Symptoms Among Healthcare Workers: The Role of Sleep.Workplace health & safety · 2021Article
- A mixed-method approach to tailor the implementation of a participatory Total Worker HealthInternational journal of workplace health management · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare facilities are notorious for occupational health and safety problems. Multi-level interventions are needed to address interacting exposures and their overlapping origins in work organization features. Worker participation in problem identification and resolution is essential. This study evaluates the CPH-NEW Healthy Workplace Participatory Program (HWPP), a Total Worker Health® protocol to develop effective employee teams for worker safety, health, and wellbeing.
methodsSix public sector, unionized healthcare facilities are enrolled, in three pairs, matched by agency. The unit of intervention is a workplace health and safety committee, adapted here to a joint labor-management "Design Team" (DT). The DT conducts root cause analyses, prioritizes problems, identifies feasible interventions in light of the constraints and needs of the specific setting, makes business-case presentations to facility leadership, and assists in evaluation. Following a stepped-wedge (cross-over) design, one site in each pair is randomly assigned to "immediate intervention" status, receiving the full coached intervention at baseline; in the "lagged intervention" site, coaching begins about half-way through the study. Program effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes are assessed at both organizational (e.g., workers' compensation claim and absenteeism rates, perceived management support of safety) and individual levels (e.g., self-rated health, sleep quality, leisure-time exercise). Targeted pre-post analyses will also examine specific outcomes appropriate to the topics selected for intervention. Process evaluation outcomes include fidelity of the HWPP intervention, extent of individual DT member activity, expansion of committee scope to include employee well-being, program obstacles and opportunities in each setting, and sustainability (within the available time frame). DISCUSSION: This study aims for a quantitative evaluation of the HWPP over a time period long enough to accomplish multiple intervention cycles in each facility. The design seeks to achieve comparable study engagement and data quality between groups. We will also assess whether the HWPP might be further improved to meet the needs of U.S. public sector healthcare institutions. Potential challenges include difficulty in pooling data across study sites if Design Teams select different intervention topics, and follow-up periods too short for change to be observed.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04251429 (retrospectively registered January 29, 2020), protocol version 1.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.