Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33772378›Full record

Trial reportInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2021

Methodological approach for measuring the effects of organisational-level interventions on employee withdrawal behaviour.

M Akerstrom, J Severin, H Imberg, I H Jonsdottir, L Björk, L Corin

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

M AkerstromRegion Västra Götaland, Institute of Stress Medicine, Gothenburg, Sweden. magnus.akerstrom@vgregion.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8469-6193
J SeverinRegion Västra Götaland, Institute of Stress Medicine, Gothenburg, Sweden.
H ImbergDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology and The University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
I H JonsdottirRegion Västra Götaland, Institute of Stress Medicine, Gothenburg, Sweden.
L BjörkRegion Västra Götaland, Institute of Stress Medicine, Gothenburg, Sweden.
L CorinRegion Västra Götaland, Institute of Stress Medicine, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

AFA Försäkring 180069
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTheoretical frameworks have recommended organisational-level interventions to decrease employee withdrawal behaviours such as sickness absence and employee turnover. However, evaluation of such interventions has produced inconclusive results. The aim of this study was to investigate if mixed-effects models in combination with time series analysis, process evaluation, and reference group comparisons could be used for evaluating the effects of an organisational-level intervention on employee withdrawal behaviour.

methodsMonthly data on employee withdrawal behaviours (sickness absence, employee turnover, employment rate, and unpaid leave) were collected for 58 consecutive months (before and after the intervention) for intervention and reference groups. In total, eight intervention groups with a total of 1600 employees participated in the intervention. Process evaluation data were collected by process facilitators from the intervention team. Overall intervention effects were assessed using mixed-effects models with an AR (1) covariance structure for the repeated measurements and time as fixed effect. Intervention effects for each intervention group were assessed using time series analysis. Finally, results were compared descriptively with data from process evaluation and reference groups to disentangle the organisational-level intervention effects from other simultaneous effects.

resultsAll measures of employee withdrawal behaviour indicated statistically significant time trends and seasonal variability. Applying these methods to an organisational-level intervention resulted in an overall decrease in employee withdrawal behaviour. Meanwhile, the intervention effects varied greatly between intervention groups, highlighting the need to perform analyses at multiple levels to obtain a full understanding. Results also indicated that possible delayed intervention effects must be considered and that data from process evaluation and reference group comparisons were vital for disentangling the intervention effects from other simultaneous effects.

conclusionsWhen analysing the effects of an intervention, time trends, seasonal variability, and other changes in the work environment must be considered. The use of mixed-effects models in combination with time series analysis, process evaluation, and reference groups is a promising way to improve the evaluation of organisational-level interventions that can easily be adopted by others.

Indexed as

AbsenteeismDelivery of Health CareEmploymentHealth PromotionHumansPersonnel TurnoverSick LeaveSwedenWorkplaceEmployee turnoverMixed-effects modelsOrganisationOrganisational-level interventionProcess evaluationPublic sectorSickness absenceTime series analysisWork environmentWorkplace interventions

Identifiers

PMID33772378
PMCPMC8384822

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.